[Edit] Trump changes mind, will allow a million more immigrants before closing border

[johnwk]

SEE: Trump backs off threat to close border, a day before visit to California (https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-border-closing-calexico-california-20190404-story.html)


Apr 04, 2019



”President Trump backed off his threat to close the border with Mexico, one day before he travels to California to highlight what he is calling an immigration crisis.



“We’re going to give them a one-year warning,” Trump said Thursday, referring to Mexico.”




Let us not forget that that Trump’s own top border officials, judging from current unwanted border crossing numbers, expect one million unwanted border crossings will occur this year LINK (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-border-officials-predict-number-migrants-attempting-cross/story?id=61957788), and American citizens will suffer the devastating social and economic impact of this invasion.




So, as it turns out, President Trump has finally proven to be all wind and no sail when it comes to stopping the ongoing invasion of our border, not to mention he will be at the helm of power during the largest surge in unwanted border crossings.




Let us also remember that our “Freedom Caucus” has stood by in silence and has allowed the open border Republican Cabal [which includes Newt Gingrich] to scare President Trump into not closing the border down and falsely advising him of the catastrophe a shutdown would bring, convincing President Trump into this traitorous act of submission.




The fact is, our border has been closed three times in the past and the economic calamity now predicted by turncoat Republican leaders, did not happen. Mexico benefits more than the United States in our present trade relation, and by $ 63 Billion a year. It would only take closing the border for a few days or a week at the most, to bring Mexico’s President to his senses and have Mexico end the care and transportation of Central American’s as they pass through Mexico, on their way to burden the United States.




The bottom line is, if Trump carries through with allowing one million more unwanted border crossings to occur this year, it will be his undoing and open the door to be primaried. There is no sense in having a wall if Trump allows unwanted border crossing through its “big beautiful door”.




JWK




It was April of 2019 when an ongoing invasion of America’s borders swelled to tens of thousands a month, not a shot was fired to defend the borders of the United States, and America’s domestic enemies ___ socialists, communists, anarchists and globalists in Congress ___ continued with their obstruction against securing America’s borders and refused to pass laws allowing an immediate repatriation of undesirable foreigners who were invading America’s borders .

[PAF]

I wonder if Trump is beginning to listen to Ron Paul, and a chance for Republicans to act like Republicans to protect private property rights, keep businesses open along the border which contribute to a $1 Billion *per day* economy, and begin the conversation about the root cause and ending incentives.

Do you think there is hope for Trump after all? Or will he eventually bow to the statists shills and force businesses to close?

Obama did enough damage building portions of that stupid wall, there are still countless court battles going on to this day concerning government eminent domain which is simply pathetic.

If enough folks wake up and start ousting the RINOs who infiltrated the Republican Party we might finally get somewhere. All the libs/statists want to do is take private property, disrupt businesses, and push for “documentation” and government mandated wages, all of which opposes liberty, also not part of a true Republican platform.

Keeping the border and businesses open thus keeping people employed and not moving to government assist is the right thing to do.

[Origanalist]

I wonder if Trump is beginning to listen to Ron Paul,

Shirley you jest.

[Origanalist]

Trump is becoming entirely too predictable. Just take the diarrhea coming out of his pie hole for bullshit and you're on target.

[Anti Globalist]

I wonder if Trump is beginning to listen to Ron Paul, and a chance for Republicans to act like Republicans to protect private property rights, keep businesses open along the border which contribute to a $1 Billion *per day* economy, and begin the conversation about the root cause and ending incentives.

Do you think there is hope for Trump after all? Or will he eventually bow to the statists shills and force businesses to close?

Obama did enough damage building portions of that stupid wall, there are still countless court battles going on to this day concerning government eminent domain which is simply pathetic.

If enough folks wake up and start ousting the RINOs who infiltrated the Republican Party we might finally get somewhere. All the libs/statists want to do is take private property, disrupt businesses, and push for “documentation” and government mandated wages, all of which opposes liberty, also not part of a true Republican platform.

Keeping the border and businesses open thus keeping people employed and not moving to government assist is the right thing to do.
I doubt Trump has ever spend even an hour thinking about Ron Paul.

[Swordsmyth]

There are other ways to secure the border, we will see what he does instead.

[timosman]

There are other ways to secure the border, we will see what he does instead.

If the drugs don’t stop — Mexico can stop 'em if they want — we’re going to tariff the cars.

[Swordsmyth]

If the drugs don’t stop — Mexico can stop 'em if they want — we’re going to tariff the cars.

Which will kill the USMCA and NAFTA.

[Stratovarious]

I have lost all faith in Trump, All, not because of this one issue, rather a culmination
of numerous items, but this issue sure doesn't help matters.

In this case , Close the Border, right , don't we have manufacturing plants down there? Big?
I'm guessing Trump just woke up one day and ordered a press release without any thought at all,
just 'lets close the border' wtf.
End the useless drug laws, as has already been mentioned in this thread.


Why do we keep up this phony war on drugs, OUR GOVT literally supports the largest heroin production
in the world.


:facepalm:

[RonZeplin]

Sanctuary for another million illegal alien invaders. Then, bipartisan Bill of Love amnesty by 2021, IMO. :down:

[johnwk]

I wonder if Trump is beginning to listen to Ron Paul, and a chance for Republicans to act like Republicans to protect private property rights, keep businesses open along the border which contribute to a $1 Billion *per day* economy, and begin the conversation about the root cause and ending incentives.


This crap has been going on for 35 freaken years, ever since Reagan listen to the open border anarchist crowd and globalists. You apparently have not been paying attention to the devastating social and financial consequences inflicted upon American citizens by unwanted foreign aliens. And when you speak about "private property" you apparently do not consider the United States as the property of its citizens.

It appears you do not see the big picture and what is happening to our once free country.


JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon the federal government for its subsistence through massive illegal immigration, we can then bribe the invaders for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ The Democrat Party Leadership’s Marxist game plan.

[Slave Mentality]

“ticks and fleas”

May your fellow man never look at you with the same perception.

[Swordsmyth]

“ticks and fleas”

May your fellow man never look at you with the same perception.

May we never give them cause to.

[jkr]

Well they do have to make up the shortfall for all the babies they aborted ...I guess we're going to need another Bus full of people...

[johnwk]

“ticks and fleas”

May your fellow man never look at you with the same perception.


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

[Origanalist]

Which will kill the USMCA and NAFTA.

All part of the master plan.

[PAF]

This crap has been going on for 35 freaken years, ever since Reagan listen to the open border anarchist crowd and globalists. You apparently have not been paying attention to the devastating social and financial consequences inflicted upon American citizens by unwanted foreign aliens. And when you speak about "private property" you apparently do not consider the United States as the property of its citizens.

It appears you do not see the big picture and what is happening to our once free country.


JWK



Yeah yeah yeah... I’ve heard enough statist jibber jabber.

The only solution is to end incentives; keep businesses and employment rolling so that others don’t need to hop on government assist, and prevent government from taking private property for the “common good”.

Every time government gets involved, problems are created.


https://youtu.be/1VWLBWstWpM

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah yeah yeah... I’ve heard enough statist jibber jabber.

The only solution is to end incentives; keep businesses and employment rolling so that others don’t need to hop on government assist, and prevent government from taking private property for the “common good”.

Every time government gets involved, problems are created.


https://youtu.be/1VWLBWstWpM
Ron also supports putting the troops on the border and controlling who we allow to come here.

[ATruepatriot]

Ron also supports putting the troops on the border and controlling who we allow to come here.

He sure does... "Bring our troops home and use them to protect our borders". Heard him say this over and over.

[Anti Federalist]

The only solution is to end incentives; keep businesses and employment rolling so that others don’t need to hop on government assist, and prevent government from taking private property for the “common good”.

Great idea, I agree 100%

Now, how do we make that happen...especially in light of the fact that millions coming every year are opposed to those ideas?

I'm all ears...

[Anti Federalist]

He sure does... "Bring our troops home and use them to protect our borders". Heard him say this over and over.

As I've stated before, he said that to my face at a campaign event in NH in 2007.

Here he is at Ames IA in 2011.

But I do think we should deal with our borders. One way that I would suggest that we could do it is pay less attention to the borders between Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan and bring our troops home and deal with the border. But why do we pay more attention to the borders overseas and less attention to the borders here at home?

[PAF]

Great idea, I agree 100%

Now, how do we make that happen...especially in light of the fact that millions coming every year are opposed to those ideas?

I'm all ears...

You know how yelling and screaming at the top of your lungs for police state tactics such as that wall that is coming to fruition? Instead of “republicans” screaming their heads off for “government please police state me, take my private property, restrict my freedom to travel freely, how about screaming to end incentives!!! That’s a Free Solution!

[Anti Federalist]

You know how yelling and screaming at the top of your lungs for police state tactics such as that wall that is coming to fruition? Instead of “republicans” screaming their heads off for “government please police state me, take my private property, restrict my freedom to travel freely, how about screaming to end incentives!!! That’s a Free Solution!

Been doing that for 30 years.

Ineffective...I am not going to see real immigration control, or a wall or fence or earthen berm any more than I am going to see any real reduction in the welfare/warfare state.

Next suggestion?

[Anti Federalist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBzhx9JHivM

[ATruepatriot]

As I've stated before, he said that to my face at a campaign event in NH in 2007.

Here he is at Ames IA in 2011.

But I do think we should deal with our borders. One way that I would suggest that we could do it is pay less attention to the borders between Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan and bring our troops home and deal with the border. But why do we pay more attention to the borders overseas and less attention to the borders here at home?

Yep... :)

[ATruepatriot]

Been doing that for 30 years.

Ineffective.

Next suggestion?

Too much money involved, How would the states and local governments get more funds to skim off for other uses? No more need, no more money to skim.

[PAF]

Been doing that for 30 years.

Ineffective...I am not going to see real immigration control, or a wall or fence or earthen berm any more than I am going to see any real reduction in the welfare/warfare state.

Next suggestion?

30 years, huh? Government refuses to correct the problem. But they will put a wall up. Why do think that is? To solve the problem and allow us to be free? Fiscal responsibility? Government had a change of heart all of sudden claiming the wall will fix things?

Can you and I swap screen names? Because I am much more anti-fed than you. In fact, all of your suggestions, from my perspective, fully supports and GROWWWS the Fed. Simply amazing.

[Swordsmyth]

30 years, huh? Government refuses to correct the problem. But they will put a wall up. Why do think that is? To solve the problem and allow us to be free? Fiscal responsibility? Government had a change of heart all of sudden claiming the wall will fix things?

Can you and I swap screen names? Because I am much more anti-fed than you. In fact, all of your suggestions, from my perspective, fully supports and GROWWWS the Fed. Simply amazing.
In case you didn't notice, the government is doing everything they can to avoid securing the border.

YOU are on the same side as the government.

[PAF]

In case you didn't notice, the government is doing everything they can to avoid securing the border.

YOU are on the same side as the government.

Correct.

Incorrect.

I have no use for this government that takes my hard-earned dough to fund welfare, useless stupid walls, and employing statists like you to flood the forums. When all it has to do is simply cut back spending. You’d think trump would support such a thing and announce it to the folks he wants voting for him in 2020. But he doesn’t, which is why he’ll never get my vote.

[r3volution 3.0]

I guess I'm supposed to be happy that the insane person elected by idiots is now, after a day's tweetering, reconsidering his "plan."

[Swordsmyth]

Correct.

Incorrect.

I have no use for this government that takes my hard-earned dough to fund welfare, useless stupid walls, and employing statists like you to flood the forums. When all it has to do is simply cut back spending. You’d think trump would support such a thing and announce it to the folks he wants voting for him in 2020. But he doesn’t, which is why he’ll never get my vote.
You are supporting the governments policy to facilitate the invasion and opposing those who are attempting to force it to do its job and prevent it.

[Anti Federalist]

30 years, huh? Government refuses to correct the problem. But they will put a wall up. Why do think that is? To solve the problem and allow us to be free? Fiscal responsibility? Government had a change of heart all of sudden claiming the wall will fix things?

Can you and I swap screen names? Because I am much more anti-fed than you. In fact, all of your suggestions, from my perspective, fully supports and GROWWWS the Fed. Simply amazing.

Use whatever name you want.

Why is that, when I get into these arguments, people that take the opposing position get so hostile and frothing: they question my motives, they mock my avatar, they mock my screen name, they come, in short, unglued?



Thomas Jefferson, probably the foremost "Anti Federalist" on immigrants and immigration: (https://www.proconservative.net/PCVol5Is272FarrellImmigrationInsecurity.shtml)

"They (migrants) 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."

[Danke]

Yeah yeah yeah... I’ve heard enough statist jibber jabber.

The only solution is to end incentives; keep businesses and employment rolling so that others don’t need to hop on government assist, and prevent government from taking private property for the “common good”.

Every time government gets involved, problems are created.


https://youtu.be/1VWLBWstWpM

Wow, he absolutely destroyed the leftists' arguments here.

[Swordsmyth]

Use whatever name you want.

Why is that, when I get into these arguments, people that take the opposing position get so hostile and frothing: they question my motives, they mock my avatar, they mock my screen name, they come, in short, unglued?



Thomas Jefferson, probably the foremost "Anti Federalist" on immigrants and immigration: (https://www.proconservative.net/PCVol5Is272FarrellImmigrationInsecurity.shtml)

"They (migrants) 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."

More TJ:

"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

[tfurrh]

Regardless of your position on this issue. The thread title is outside of the community guidelines.

[Pauls' Revere]

If the drugs don’t stop — Mexico can stop 'em if they want — we’re going to tariff the cars.

AOC should love that, its that part of the New Green deal? Get rid of cars?

[johnwk]

Yeah yeah yeah... I’ve heard enough statist jibber jabber.

The only solution is to end incentives . . .

Which part of your anatomy do you think with? Our freedom and prosperity is the incentive. Why do you want to end this?


:confused:

JWK



Socialist democrats running for office will promise food on the table, free public housing, health care for all, guaranteed income, free college tuition, and other niceties by taxing the so called rich; and if by chance they ever do get political power because of such promises made, their socialist iron-fisted dependency will enslave the very fools who elected them.

[Superfluous Man]

I wonder if Trump is beginning to listen to Ron Paul, and a chance for Republicans to act like Republicans to protect private property rights, keep businesses open along the border which contribute to a $1 Billion *per day* economy, and begin the conversation about the root cause and ending incentives.

Do you think there is hope for Trump after all? Or will he eventually bow to the statists shills and force businesses to close?

Obama did enough damage building portions of that stupid wall, there are still countless court battles going on to this day concerning government eminent domain which is simply pathetic.

If enough folks wake up and start ousting the RINOs who infiltrated the Republican Party we might finally get somewhere. All the libs/statists want to do is take private property, disrupt businesses, and push for “documentation” and government mandated wages, all of which opposes liberty, also not part of a true Republican platform.

Keeping the border and businesses open thus keeping people employed and not moving to government assist is the right thing to do.

+rep

[Slave Mentality]

Regardless of your position on this issue. The thread title is outside of the community guidelines.

I agree. Uncalled for.

[Superfluous Man]

Use whatever name you want.

Why is that, when I get into these arguments, people that take the opposing position get so hostile and frothing: they question my motives, they mock my avatar, they mock my screen name, they come, in short, unglued?



Thomas Jefferson, probably the foremost "Anti Federalist" on immigrants and immigration: (https://www.proconservative.net/PCVol5Is272FarrellImmigrationInsecurity.shtml)

"They (migrants) 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."

A few lines later in that very same document, TJ writes:
"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."

So, he not only affirms their right to come here of their own accord in unlimited numbers, but further holds that those who do even have a right to citizenship. I won't go as far in my open-borders position as TJ does, since I don't think just coming here should always open the door to full citizenship. But it's noteworthy that he says this in contrast with the lines you quoted.

So what you quoted should be kept in this context. Yes, TJ was an immigration skeptic. But he would not allow this to become a pretense for some government action to restrict immigration. He was not one to say, "there ought to be a law...," every time he encountered something he didn't personally like.

[devil21]

I agree. Uncalled for.

There are some posters deliberately trying to trash up RPF and turn it into a Breitbart atmosphere. We never allowed that sort of stuff before. I wish mods would do their jobs but I never see anyone except Brian anymore.

[Ender]

Use whatever name you want.

Why is that, when I get into these arguments, people that take the opposing position get so hostile and frothing: they question my motives, they mock my avatar, they mock my screen name, they come, in short, unglued?



Thomas Jefferson, probably the foremost "Anti Federalist" on immigrants and immigration: (https://www.proconservative.net/PCVol5Is272FarrellImmigrationInsecurity.shtml)

"They (migrants) 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."

Jefferson also said a revolution was needed every 20 years to keep one's freedom but that's way too hard- just better to blame the current "ticks" on our loss of liberty than the real culprits- amirite?

[Superfluous Man]

Regardless of your position on this issue. The thread title is outside of the community guidelines.

Agreed.

And what's behind the phrase "ticks a fleas" anyway? Is there a play on words I'm not getting. I feel like I must be having a brain fart here, because I'm sitting here saying "ticks a fleas" over and over in my head until something clicks.

[Ender]

Agreed.

And what's behind the phrase "ticks a fleas" anyway? Is there a play on words I'm not getting. I feel like I must be having a brain fart here, because I'm sitting here saying "ticks a fleas" over and over in my head until something clicks.

Blood suckers that will suck all your life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness away.

[TheCount]

Agreed.

And what's behind the phrase "ticks a fleas" anyway? Is there a play on words I'm not getting. I feel like I must be having a brain fart here, because I'm sitting here saying "ticks a fleas" over and over in my head until something clicks.
Fascists must dehumanize their scapegoats in order to make their policies palatable.

[Anti Federalist]

A few lines later in that very same document, TJ writes:
"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."

So, he not only affirms their right to come here of their own accord in unlimited numbers, but further holds that those who do even have a right to citizenship. I won't go as far in my open-borders position as TJ does, since I don't think just coming here should always open the door to full citizenship. But it's noteworthy that he says this in contrast with the lines you quoted.

So what you quoted should be kept in this context. Yes, TJ was an immigration skeptic. But he would not allow this to become a pretense for some government action to restrict immigration. He was not one to say, "there ought to be a law...," every time he encountered something he didn't personally like.

So basically, he has the same position I have.

In a perfect world, outside of government incentives, handouts and distortions, people could be free to come here as they please, but if the situation is such that millions overrun the nation, bringing with them their native prejudices so as to take the body politic and "warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, in-coherent, distracted mass" resulting in a loss of freedom and failure to defend the virtues of liberty and limited government, then it must be restricted.

[Superfluous Man]

So basically, he has the same position I have.

Right, except for the part where he doesn't support the government restricting immigration.

[Anti Federalist]

Jefferson also said a revolution was needed every 20 years to keep one's freedom but that's way too hard- just better to blame the current "ticks" on our loss of liberty than the real culprits- amirite?

No.

I'll say it again, perhaps everybody will listen when I say for the millionth time:

Our loss of liberty is due to multi faceted causes, not the least of which is home grown authoritarians.

Reversing the course of these causes will be a Herculean task, and in fact it is probably too late, but let's assume we can try.

Whilst trying to reverse the course of these causes, allowing millions into the country who are indifferent to this struggle, or are actively in favor of increasing the size, scope, reach and handouts of government, is suicidal.

This is without even mentioning those that are fomenting, both within native and immigrant populations, a genocidal hatred of the people that built this nation from the very start.

Logic, reason, and common sense says that while trying to get a handle on these issues, immigration needs to be, to my mind, halted completely, for at least 10 years.

[Anti Federalist]

Right, except for the part where he doesn't support the government restricting immigration.

"[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."

[Superfluous Man]

"[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)

I note several things:
1) Your link doesn't go to a primary source, but to a propagandistic article that presents quotes like this out of their context.
2) It butchers this quote. It changes it so much that it's inexcusable for them to put it in quotation marks.
3) Even at that, the quote as you gave it, says nothing about restricting immigration. In fact, in the original context, TJ was talking about naturalization. And more than that, he only offers this minimal restriction of the affording of citizenship within a longer section of his defending a very broad offer of it to almost anyone who immigrates to America. Again, as I read him, he supports giving out citizenship more broadly than I do.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jeffmes1.asp

[Anti Federalist]

I note several things:
1) Your link doesn't go to a primary source, but to a propagandistic article that presents quotes like this out of their context.
2) It butchers this quote. It changes it so much that it's inexcusable for them to put it in quotation marks.
3) Even at that, the quote as you gave it, says nothing about restricting immigration. In fact, in the original context, TJ was talking about naturalization.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jeffmes1.asp

*sigh*

OhhhhKay...Let's start with this:

I have taken the term of four millions and a half of inhabitants for example's sake only. Yet I am persuaded it is a greater number than the country spoken of, considering how much inarrable land it contains, can clothe and feed, without a material change in the quality of their diet. But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible 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 absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. 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 numbers, 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. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired, or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. 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. I mean not that these doubts should be extended to the importation of useful artificers. The policy of that measure depends on very different considerations. Spare no expence in obtaining them. They will after a while go to the plough and the hoe; but, in the mean time, they will teach us something we do not know. It is not so in agriculture. The indifferent state of that among us does not proceed from a want of knowledge merely; it is from our having such quantities of land to waste as we please. In Europe the object is to make the most of their land, labour being abundant: here it is to make the most of our labour, land being abundant.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/jefferson/ch08.html

In this passage, Jefferson is saying what I am saying.

[Superfluous Man]

*sigh*

OhhhhKay...Let's start with this:

I have taken the term of four millions and a half of inhabitants for example's sake only. Yet I am persuaded it is a greater number than the country spoken of, considering how much inarrable land it contains, can clothe and feed, without a material change in the quality of their diet. But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible 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 absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. 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 numbers, 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. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired, or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. 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. I mean not that these doubts should be extended to the importation of useful artificers. The policy of that measure depends on very different considerations. Spare no expence in obtaining them. They will after a while go to the plough and the hoe; but, in the mean time, they will teach us something we do not know. It is not so in agriculture. The indifferent state of that among us does not proceed from a want of knowledge merely; it is from our having such quantities of land to waste as we please. In Europe the object is to make the most of their land, labour being abundant: here it is to make the most of our labour, land being abundant.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/jefferson/ch08.html

In this passage, Jefferson is saying what I am saying.

So you agree with him when he says, "If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship"?

Because all this time I thought you favored the government imposing restrictions on foreigners being able to even come here, much less become citizens.

If this really is your position, then you're a stronger proponent of open borders than I am. I would agree that they shouldn't be prevented from coming here, but I don't go so far as to say that all who do should be able to become citizens.

[Anti Federalist]

So you agree with him when he says, "If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship"?

Because all this time I thought you favored the government imposing restrictions on foreigners being able to even come here, much less become citizens.

If this really is your position, then you're a stronger proponent of open borders than I am. I would agree that they shouldn't be prevented from coming here, but I don't go so far as to say that all who do should be able to become citizens.


but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements.

"Extraordinary encouragements" is the state and it's extorted goodies.

If there was a fedgov with the size and the scope and the power of the fedgov in, say, 1850, I'd more than likely have no issue with it.

But there isn't.

And this was recognized almost a 100 years ago.

Which is why Coolidge signed the Immigration Act.


I would agree that they shouldn't be prevented from coming here, but I don't go so far as to say that all who do should be able to become citizens

Whoa, wait a minute...why shouldn't they be citizens?

[Superfluous Man]

"Extraordinary encouragements" is the state and it's extorted goodies.

If there was a fedgov with the size and the scope and the power of the fedgov in, say, 1850, I'd more than likely have no issue with it.

But there isn't.

And this was recognized almost a 100 years ago.

Which is why Coolidge signed the Immigration Act.


So you do agree with him in his opposition to any government restriction of immigration? Or you disagree with him about that?

That's the main point of contention here after all.

I haven't seen anyone here disagree with him about the wrongfulness of offering extraordinary encouragements for it.


Whoa, wait a minute...why shouldn't they be citizens?

First of all, I would support getting rid of citizenship for absolutely everyone, and voting along with it.

But even aside from that, given the existence of citizenship and voting rights here, not everyone who is here should be able to vote. The bar that should be set for merely being able to come here and work (which should be totally without restriction) should be different than the bar for being able to vote (which should not be totally without restriction).

[johnwk]

Regardless of your position on this issue. The thread title is outside of the community guidelines.

How so?

JWK

The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and the Sixteenth Amendment,also of 1913, have spread the evil tentacles of federal crony capitalism intoalmost every corner of our once free market, free enterprise system.

[tfurrh]

How so?

Go read the community guidelines and answer your own damn question.

[Anti Federalist]

So you do agree with him in his opposition to any government restriction of immigration? Or you disagree with him about that?

That's the main point of contention here after all.

I haven't seen anyone here disagree with him about the wrongfulness of offering extraordinary encouragements for it.

Thomas Jefferson, like any man of his time, was a thinking person, capable of seeing both sides of an issues, offering insight into both.

Today, that's a rare quality.

I can see both sides of his case, I can see both sides of this issue, I can make rational judgements based in common sense and keeping individual liberty as the ultimate goal always my primary concern.

For that, I get called a racist and white supremacist by the Bolshies, and a Fascist and Nazi by the leftarians and one worlders around here, like PickUpStyx for instance.

All things being equal I am in favor of people being able to move around with no restrictions.

However, these are not normal or "equal" times. I see tens of thousands of people invading the nation, in an orchestrated act of demographic warfare, and the Baghdad Bobs of the Bolshevik "left" and One World "right" tell me what I'm seeing is not happening, to move along and forget it.

Therefore, logic, common sense and self preservation tells me I should adopt Ron Paul's position:

That this is an invasion, therefore it has to be treated differently and we need to bring the troops home from protecting the borders of foreign countries and deploy them at the border here, to defend the republic, as mandated by the constitution, in addition to calling up the militia, both organized and unorganized, to assist.

Now, that may very well be a position that agitates and ruffles the feathers of the leftarians, the anarcho one worlders, the Suicide Christians and the Monarchists.

But that was Ron's position in 2008.

It was his position in 2012.

It was one of the reasons I supported him, for clear headed, common sense liberty policies.


First of all, I would support getting rid of citizenship for absolutely everyone, and voting along with it.

Are you a Monarchist as well?

Citizens become subjects?


But even aside from that, given the existence of citizenship and voting rights here, not everyone who is here should be able to vote. The bar that should be set for merely being able to come here and work (which should be totally without restriction) should be different than the bar for being able to vote (which should not be totally without restriction).

Again, I'll re-ask my question: Why?

[Swordsmyth]

A few lines later in that very same document, TJ writes:
"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."

So, he not only affirms their right to come here of their own accord in unlimited numbers, but further holds that those who do even have a right to citizenship. I won't go as far in my open-borders position as TJ does, since I don't think just coming here should always open the door to full citizenship. But it's noteworthy that he says this in contrast with the lines you quoted.

So what you quoted should be kept in this context. Yes, TJ was an immigration skeptic. But he would not allow this to become a pretense for some government action to restrict immigration. He was not one to say, "there ought to be a law...," every time he encountered something he didn't personally like.


So basically, he has the same position I have.

In a perfect world, outside of government incentives, handouts and distortions, people could be free to come here as they please, but if the situation is such that millions overrun the nation, bringing with them their native prejudices so as to take the body politic and "warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, in-coherent, distracted mass" resulting in a loss of freedom and failure to defend the virtues of liberty and limited government, then it must be restricted.


Right, except for the part where he doesn't support the government restricting immigration.




He says they are entitled because that was the current law and the founders wanted immigrants to increase our population in order to expand so that Canada couldn't expand south and cut us off from the frontier, he did not say they had a right to come here.

He also said that we had a right to exclude people who were a threat to our liberty:



"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

[Swordsmyth]

Thomas Jefferson, like any man of his time, was a thinking person, capable of seeing both sides of an issues, offering insight into both.

Today, that's a rare quality.

I can see both sides of his case, I can see both sides of this issue, I can make rational judgements based in common sense and keeping individual liberty as the ultimate goal always my primary concern.

For that, I get called a racist and white supremacist by the Bolshies, and a Fascist and Nazi by the leftarians and one worlders around here, like PickUpStyx for instance.

All things being equal I am in favor of people being able to move around with no restrictions.

However, these are not normal or "equal" times. I see tens of thousands of people invading the nation, in an orchestrated act of demographic warfare, and the Baghdad Bobs of the Bolshevik "left" and One World "right" tell me what I'm seeing is not happening, to move along and forget it.

Therefore, logic, common sense and self preservation tells me I should adopt Ron Paul's position:

That this is an invasion, therefore it has to be treated differently and we need to bring the troops home from protecting the borders of foreign countries and deploy them at the border here, to defend the republic, as mandated by the constitution, in addition to calling up the militia, both organized and unorganized, to assist.

Now, that may very well be a position that agitates and ruffles the feathers of the leftarians, the anarcho one worlders, the Suicide Christians and the Monarchists.

But that was Ron's position in 2008.

It was his position in 2012.

It was one of the reasons I supported him, for clear headed, common sense liberty policies.



Are you a Monarchist as well?

Citizens become subjects?



Again, I'll re-ask my question: Why?

The one thing I agree with SM about is that not everyone should be allowed to vote, anyone who receives any government money (possibly including the employees of government contractors but excluding the military) should be banned from voting and there are other restrictions I would consider as well.

[Zippyjuan]

The one thing I agree with SM about is that not everyone should be allowed to vote, anyone who receives any government money (possibly including the employees of government contractors but excluding the military) should be banned from voting and there are other restrictions I would consider as well.

Like requiring them to vote the way you want them to.

[Stratovarious]

You are supporting the governments policy to facilitate the invasion and opposing those who are attempting to force it to do its job and prevent it.

''You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Swordsmyth again.''

[Swordsmyth]

Like requiring them to vote the way you want them to.
No, that's why we have to be careful about who we allow to join us.

[Stratovarious]

Like requiring them to vote the way you want them to.
How do illegals and immigrants from socialist Countries vote?

[Stratovarious]

The one thing I agree with SM about is that not everyone should be allowed to vote, anyone who receives any government money (possibly including the employees of government contractors but excluding the military) should be banned from voting and there are other restrictions I would consider as well.

How about NO FEDERAL NOR STATE EMPLOYEE shall have the right to vote.

I think that might be a win win.

[Anti Federalist]

The one thing I agree with SM about is that not everyone should be allowed to vote, anyone who receives any government money (possibly including the employees of government contractors but excluding the military) should be banned from voting and there are other restrictions I would consider as well.

I agree.

But I'm trying to pin SM down as to why anybody could come here, but they can't vote.

That seems to me anyways, a logical inconsistency.

[Swordsmyth]

How about NO FEDERAL NOR STATE EMPLOYEE shall have the right to vote.

I think that might be a win win.
They get government money so in my proposal they wouldn't get to vote, the only exception would be the military because politicians decide whether to send them to kill and die.

[Swordsmyth]

I agree.

But I'm trying to pin SM down as to why anybody could come here, but they can't vote.

That seems to me anyways, a logical inconsistency.
It is unless he wants slaves.

[Stratovarious]

They get government money so in my proposal they wouldn't get to vote, the only exception would be the military because politicians decide whether to send them to kill and die.

I thought you said govt 'contractors' , either way , I agree.

[Stratovarious]

They get government money so in my proposal they wouldn't get to vote, the only exception would be the military because politicians decide whether to send them to kill and die.
I'm going to side with lumping Military personnel in on the pkg, they have an incentive to
vote for the 'hawks' .

[Swordsmyth]

I thought you said govt 'contractors' , either way , I agree.
I said I might include the employees of government contractors even though they don't get direct government money.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm going to side with lumping Military personnel in on the pkg, they have an incentive to
vote for the 'hawks' .
Do they?
They are the ones whose lives will be at risk, the military was one of Ron's biggest sources of supporters.

[Stratovarious]

I said I might include the employees of government contractors even though they don't get direct government money.
Pardon me, its beer thirty, I'm not trying to get things 100% , just hangin' out, random ideas....
The thing about the 'military' with me, on a side note is that , I get sick and tired of
how everyone heaves grand accolades on military personnel, hey my nephew did tours and killed himself on
base, do I accolade his great service to the country, no, he was a great kid, but he joined the military.

I don't believe for one minute that these people are 'special' and doing us a big favor, when they are
conscripted , that's different.

They 'join' the military , for personal reasons ,advantages, benefits, etc, and I don't believe for one minute that they
are altruistically motivated.

And what was the last war fought that did America or the lands and people we torched and butchered of benefit
to us or the world.....Rhetorical of course.


EOR

:frog:

[Stratovarious]

Do they?
They are the ones whose lives will be at risk, the military was one of Ron's biggest sources of supporters.

I don't know, I think a lot of them want to see some 'action' , could be wrong.

They would vote for grand budgets too, no?

[Swordsmyth]

Pardon me, its beer thirty, I'm not trying to get things 100% , just hangin' out, random ideas....
The thing about the 'military' with me, on a side note is that , I get sick and tired of
how everyone heaves grand accolades on military personnel, hey my nephew did tours and killed himself on
base, do I accolade his great service to the country, no, he was a great kid, but he joined the military.

I don't believe for one minute that these people are 'special' and doing us a big favor, when they are
conscripted , that's different.

They 'join' the military , for personal reasons ,advantages, benefits, etc, and I don't believe for one minute that they
are altruistically motivated.

And what was the last war fought that did America or the lands and people we torched and butchered of benefit
to us or the world.....Rhetorical of course.


EOR

:frog:
I don't want to put them on a pedestal but I can't possibly justify having politicians they had no say in choosing send them to kill and die.

They also tend to be conservative and even anti-war, they were one of Ron's biggest sources of supporters.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't know, I think a lot of them want to see some 'action' , could be wrong.

They would vote for grand budgets too, no?
LOL

We are getting out of sync.

That is a concern but I can't possibly justify having politicians they had no say in choosing send them to kill and die.

[Stratovarious]

I don't want to put them on a pedestal but I can't possibly justify having politicians they had no say in choosing send them to kill and die.

They also tend to be conservative and even anti-war, they were one of Ron's biggest sources of supporters.

I don't know , you're probably right, I still see them as being govt employees though.

[Origanalist]

I don't know , you're probably right, I still see them as being govt employees though.

They are, and I'm fairly sick of the assholes online and anywhere else who tell me "you're welcome" for Freedom and The American Way blarg, blarg, blarg.

Besides, they get special parking spots at Lowes, what else do they want?

[Stratovarious]

They are, and I'm fairly sick of the $#@!s online and anywhere else who tell me "you're welcome" for Freedom and The American Way blarg, blarg, blarg.

Besides, they get special parking spots at Lowes, what else do they want?

LOL , I know , fighting for our freedom by seeing to it that a million civilians in Iraq (people I have no special love
for , but they are humans), a million men, women, and children 'torched' because we needed
to feed Haliburton mic types, wtf over?

Protecting my freedom, my ash............

[ATruepatriot]

Pardon me, its beer thirty, I'm not trying to get things 100% , just hangin' out, random ideas....
The thing about the 'military' with me, on a side note is that , I get sick and tired of
how everyone heaves grand accolades on military personnel, hey my nephew did tours and killed himself on
base, do I accolade his great service to the country, no, he was a great kid, but he joined the military.

I don't believe for one minute that these people are 'special' and doing us a big favor, when they are
conscripted , that's different.

They 'join' the military , for personal reasons ,advantages, benefits, etc, and I don't believe for one minute that they
are altruistically motivated.

And what was the last war fought that did America or the lands and people we torched and butchered of benefit
to us or the world.....Rhetorical of course.


EOR

:frog:

I don't blame the kids at all. They are exploited and sold a bill of goods by snakeoil salesmen at their most vulnerable age. At 17 hormones are raging and all they have on their minds is breeding as often and as much as they can. The snakeoil salesmen tell them that if they join they will get all the ladies they want. We will make you a bad ass, we will give you money to take them out, you will be able to afford a sports car... chicks like sports cars, we will send you to other counties so that you can get hot foreign chicks. Chicks like uniforms, Etc. Etc. Sound good? sign here.

Now... the actual sales pitch might be worded differently, but THIS is what the kids hear in their brain because the hormones are screaming "chicks!" after every sentence the recruiter utters. Now if they had to wait until they were 21 and had some of that out of their system before they could enlist in the service there would be very few enlisting. It's the MIC and this military system and the snakeoil salesmen I have a huge beef with along with what wars cost humanity. I honestly think the kids are victims because they are not yet rational in thought and do not fully understand what the consequences might be. They are drugged with hormonal sex drive and one track mind and all rational thought is clouded by this.

This is exactly why they recruit at 17. They know this fact and exploit it

[Stratovarious]

I don't blame the kids at all. They are exploited and sold a bill of goods by snakeoil salesmen at their most vulnerable age. At 17 hormones are raging and all they have on their minds is breeding as often and as much as they can. The snakeoil salesmen tell them that if they join they will get all the ladies they want. We will make you a bad ass, we will give you money to take them out, you will be able to afford a sports car... chicks like sports cars, we will send you to other counties so that you can get hot foreign chicks. Chicks like uniforms, Etc. Etc. Sound good? sign here.

Now... the actual sales pitch might be worded differently, but THIS is what the kids hear in their brain because the hormones are screaming "chicks!" after every sentence the recruiter utters. Now if they had to wait until they were 21 and had some of that out of their system before they could enlist in the service there would be very few enlisting. It's the MIC and this military system and the snakeoil salesmen I have a huge beef with along with what wars cost humanity. I honestly think the kids are victims because they are not yet rational in thought and do not fully understand what the consequences might be. They are drugged with hormonal sex drive and one track mind and all rational thought is clouded by this.

This is exactly why they recruit at 17. They know this fact and exploit it
Yes, I've been aware of this aspect for decades, it is fact indeed.
So, my position is that I don't hate them for it , but will not put them on a pedestal for 'protecting' me, not
when there are no legit wars to be fought, they are truly manipulated , no doubt, and as you say , that
is the age to best exploit.

[ATruepatriot]

Yes, I've been aware of this aspect for decades, it is fact indeed.
So, my position is that I don't hate them for it , but will not put them on a pedestal for 'protecting' me, not
when there are no legit wars to be fought, they are truly manipulated , no doubt, and as you say , that
is the age to best exploit.

I absolutely agree. Same stance here.

[devil21]

Regarding AF and SM's discussion of TJ's quotes, it's kind of pointless to get into talk about citizenship-this-or-that, since TJ's notion of citizenship is very different than 14th Amendment citizenship we know today. The 14th came 40 years after his death. TJ's citizenship referred to immigrants coming inside the federal border to live and swear loyalty to their state of residence. The "state citizen". No such thing as an "federal illegal immigrant" back then or a federal citizen. Only "aliens".

OTOH, the 14th's citizenship clause created the "U.S. Citizen", which is a legal status as an employee and property of the federal government corporation seated in DC. They're two different visions of citizenship and have little in common. Back in TJ's day there were only state citizens and those states made up the United States of America. They were not federal citizens of which the federal government could classify as legal or illegal or otherwise exercise any control over.

[Ender]

Regarding AF and SM's discussion of TJ's quotes, it's kind of pointless to get into talk about citizenship-this-or-that, since TJ's notion of citizenship is very different than 14th Amendment citizenship we know today. The 14th came 40 years after his death. TJ's citizenship referred to immigrants coming inside the federal border to live and swear loyalty to their state of residence. The "state citizen". No such thing as an "federal illegal immigrant" back then or a federal citizen. Only "aliens".

OTOH, the 14th's citizenship clause created the "U.S. Citizen", which is a legal status as an employee and property of the federal government corporation seated in DC. They're two different visions of citizenship and have little in common. Back in TJ's day there were only state citizens and those states made up the United States of America. They were not federal citizens.

Exactly. The 14 Amendment made everyone a slave.

[Swordsmyth]

Regarding AF and SM's discussion of TJ's quotes, it's kind of pointless to get into talk about citizenship-this-or-that, since TJ's notion of citizenship is very different than 14th Amendment citizenship we know today. The 14th came 40 years after his death. TJ's citizenship referred to immigrants coming inside the federal border to live and swear loyalty to their state of residence. The "state citizen". No such thing as an "federal illegal immigrant" back then or a federal citizen. Only "aliens".

OTOH, the 14th's citizenship clause created the "U.S. Citizen", which is a legal status as an employee and property of the federal government corporation seated in DC. They're two different visions of citizenship and have little in common. Back in TJ's day there were only state citizens and those states made up the United States of America. They were not federal citizens.
But the federal government was empowered to control who was allowed to come here and who could become a citizen:

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;



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.




Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government


<<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;

[timosman]

https://twitter.com/AynRandPaulRyan/status/1114174161943851013

1114174161943851013

[devil21]

But the federal government was empowered to control who was allowed to come here and who could become a citizen:

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;



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.




Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government


<<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;

We can parse out the Constitution if you'd like but it doesn't change what I said about TJ's notion of citizenship and how it differs greatly from the 14th Amendment citizenship that we know today. Not all of the Founders were big on state's rights and some of them did get federalist views inserted, like Alexander (Levine) Hamilton.

[Swordsmyth]

https://twitter.com/AynRandPaulRyan/status/1114174161943851013

1114174161943851013
That is VERY normal.

[johnwk]

Go read the community guidelines and answer your own damn question.


You are the one who made the claim. So, how is the title "outside of the community guidelines"?



JWK

It was April of 2019 when an ongoing invasion of America’s borders swelled to tens of thousands a month, not a shot was fired to defend the borders of the United States, and America’s domestic enemies ___ socialists, communists, anarchists and globalists in Congress ___ continued with their obstruction against securing America’s borders and refused to pass laws allowing an immediate repatriation of undesirable foreigners who were invading America’s borders.

[Anti Federalist]

Regarding AF and SM's discussion of TJ's quotes, it's kind of pointless to get into talk about citizenship-this-or-that, since TJ's notion of citizenship is very different than 14th Amendment citizenship we know today. The 14th came 40 years after his death. TJ's citizenship referred to immigrants coming inside the federal border to live and swear loyalty to their state of residence. The "state citizen". No such thing as an "federal illegal immigrant" back then or a federal citizen. Only "aliens".

OTOH, the 14th's citizenship clause created the "U.S. Citizen", which is a legal status as an employee and property of the federal government corporation seated in DC. They're two different visions of citizenship and have little in common. Back in TJ's day there were only state citizens and those states made up the United States of America. They were not federal citizens of which the federal government could classify as legal or illegal or otherwise exercise any control over.

I won't disagree.

My only point to bring up Jefferson, was to respond to the howls of indignation: "how dare you call yourself an Anti Federalist!!!" by showing that the leading Anti Fed of the time had serious misgivings about immigration.

Otherwise, in today's age and climate, the musings he had are not very applicable in the real world.

[Anti Federalist]

Exactly. The 14 Amendment made everyone a slave.

Which yet another reason why I supported Ron Paul.


Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/10/ron-paul/birthright-citizenship/

by Ron Paul

A recent article in the Houston Chronicle discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchor for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.

In some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician in south Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem. It’s the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.

This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.

No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one’s birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.

Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.

Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter the country for the express purpose of giving birth. But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools. In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits. Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits.

Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive.

I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.

Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.

[A Son of Liberty]

Been doing that for 30 years.

Ineffective...I am not going to see real immigration control, or a wall or fence or earthen berm any more than I am going to see any real reduction in the welfare/warfare state.

Next suggestion?


If I have you right: what you're saying is that you've been appealing to the state to get off your back, and that effort has been fruitless; so you've switched tactics to appealing to the state to end the stream of non-citizens flowing into the state's territory (thereby further empowering the state, of course). I think you would agree that this is a less libertarian solution to "the problem", yes? But I think what you're saying is that you became so exasperated with the failure of appealing to the state to end the incentives that you've taken to "drastic measures - appealing to the state to "secure the border".

I understand that, but I'd ask you why you think appealing to the state for anything at all is any kind of solution? I mean, this is what we anti-statists have literally been saying all along: that it is utterly pointless to appeal to the state for anything other than what will benefit the state. The state isn't going to give you anything other than that.

Here's a quote from H.D. Thoreau that is precisely relevant to your conundrum, sir:

http://www.strike-the-root.com/sites/default/files/header.gif

STRIKE THE ROOT.

[Anti Federalist]

If I have you right: what you're saying is that you've been appealing to the state to get off your back, and that effort has been fruitless; so you've switched tactics to appealing to the state to end the stream of non-citizens flowing into the state's territory (thereby further empowering the state, of course). I think you would agree that this is a less libertarian solution to "the problem", yes? But I think what you're saying is that you became so exasperated with the failure of appealing to the state to end the incentives that you've taken to "drastic measures - appealing to the state to "secure the border".

I understand that, but I'd ask you why you think appealing to the state for anything at all is any kind of solution? I mean, this is what we anti-statists have literally been saying all along: that it is utterly pointless to appeal to the state for anything other than what will benefit the state. The state isn't going to give you anything other than that.

Here's a quote from H.D. Thoreau that is precisely relevant to your conundrum, sir:

http://www.strike-the-root.com/sites/default/files/header.gif

STRIKE THE ROOT.

Close, but not quite.

STR is great site by the way, contributed to it many times over the years.

Let me clarify.

I don't think I will see any effective border control any more than I will see any meaningful reduction of the welfare/warfare/surveillance/police state.

I really do see what is happening at the border as an invasion, well planned, well thought out and manipulated by outside factors.

That, combined with the already unprecedented support for authoritarian collectivism among the native population, allowing tens of millions of migrants into the country will tip the scales to universal support for uni-party collectivist rule for the next 100 years or more.

I want the fedgov do what Ron Paul wanted it do....stop protecting borders overseas, come home and defend our borders, I want it to call out the militia, organized and un-organized, to do the same thing.

In other words, to fulfill one of the limited constitutional roles it had, in order to respond to, what I will maintain, is an invasion that will destroy any semblance of a limited, free government.

We already have active measures across the country to repeal the First and Second amendments to the bill of rights, to eliminate proportional senate representation, the electoral college and more.

I am appealing to the captain of the sinking ship of state to get off his ass, realize that we are taking on water in the middle of a hurricane and take bold and decisive action before we sink. (and no I don't mean Trump specifically, that's a just a euphemism)

To argue about whether we should have sailed into the hurricane in the first place (no, we should not have) is not germane and accomplishes nothing at this point.

But I don't think that will happen...the "captain" is in cahoots with the bankers, owners and insurance companies to sink the ship on purpose.

So, in the end, I agree, an appeal to the state to do their job properly is pretty pointless.

Nevertheless I am going get my demands on the record.

[A Son of Liberty]

Close, but not quite.

STR is great site by the way, contributed to it many times over the years.

Let me clarify.

I don't think I will see any effective border control any more than I will see any meaningful reduction of the welfare/warfare/surveillance/police state.

I really do see what is happening at the border as an invasion, well planned, well thought out and manipulated by outside factors.

That, combined with the already unprecedented support for authoritarian collectivism among the native population, allowing tens of millions of migrants into the country will tip the scales to universal support for uni-party collectivist rule for the next 100 years or more.

I want the fedgov do what Ron Paul wanted it do....stop protecting borders overseas, come home and defend our borders, I want it to call out the militia, organized and un-organized, to do the same thing.

In other words, to fulfill one of the limited constitutional roles it had, in order to respond to, what I will maintain, is an invasion that will destroy any semblance of a limited, free government.

We already have active measures across the country to repeal the First and Second amendments to the bill of rights, to eliminate proportional senate representation, the electoral college and more.

I am appealing to the captain of the sinking ship of state to get off his ass, realize that we are taking on water in the middle of a hurricane and take bold and decisive action before we sink. (and no I don't mean Trump specifically, that's a just a euphemism)

To argue about whether we should have sailed into the hurricane in the first place (no, we should not have) is not germane and accomplishes nothing at this point.

But I don't think that will happen...the "captain" is in cahoots with the bankers, owners and insurance companies to sink the ship on purpose.

So, in the end, I agree, an appeal to the state to do their job properly is pretty pointless.

Nevertheless I am going get my demands on the record.

I didn't post that pic to direct hits to STR. I posted that pic because of the quote itself. Getting your demands on the record is "hacking at the branches". STRIKE THE ROOT. That's the point. Is it a better way to kill a tree to trim it twig by twig, branch by branch, limb by limb? Or is it better to strike at the root?

It's all pointless. You can be on record as hacking at the branches. Or you can be on record as standing against evil itself.

Speaking for myself, if I'm going to die anyway, I'd prefer my epitaph to read that I stood against evil at it's root.

[Anti Federalist]

I didn't post that pic to direct hits to STR. I posted that pic because of the quote itself. Getting your demands on the record is "hacking at the branches". STRIKE THE ROOT. That's the point. Is it a better way to kill a tree to trim it twig by twig, branch by branch, limb by limb? Or is it better to strike at the root?

I understand, still a good site though.


It's all pointless. You can be on record as hacking at the branches. Or you can be on record as standing against evil itself.

Speaking for myself, if I'm going to die anyway, I'd prefer my epitaph to read that I stood against evil at it's root.

I'm on the record as hacking at the branches, salting the roots, spraying Round Up over the whole fucking thing.

Tough fucking tree man.

[Swordsmyth]

I didn't post that pic to direct hits to STR. I posted that pic because of the quote itself. Getting your demands on the record is "hacking at the branches". STRIKE THE ROOT. That's the point. Is it a better way to kill a tree to trim it twig by twig, branch by branch, limb by limb? Or is it better to strike at the root?

It's all pointless. You can be on record as hacking at the branches. Or you can be on record as standing against evil itself.

Speaking for myself, if I'm going to die anyway, I'd prefer my epitaph to read that I stood against evil at it's root.
The root is people who want big government, trying to stop an invasion of such people is striking DIRECTLY at the root.

[A Son of Liberty]

Swing and a miss

[Wooden Indian]

I've changed my mind on this, AF. I want more socialist migrants, more fig teachers, and more Smollett MAGA fake rage.... and YOU should join me.

This camel's back is looking pretty damn shaky, and nothing brings down the house like a full blown camel-cide!

I believe there is something special about this nation, and it is blessed with a dangerous fury, managed by a kind heart.

That "The American Spirit" that and God given chutzpah make us dangerous animals... and even a thoroughly domesticated dog will bite your face off given enough kicks.

[Anti Federalist]

I've changed my mind on this, AF. I want more socialist migrants, more fig teachers, and more Smollett MAGA fake rage.... and YOU should join me.

This camel's back is looking pretty damn shaky, and nothing brings down the house like a full blown camel-cide!"

Moose killed by ticks:

https://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/wildlife/moose/images/ticks-calf-lg.jpg


I believe there is something special about this nation, and it is blessed with a dangerous fury, managed by a kind heart.

That "The American Spirit" that and God given chutzpah make us dangerous animals... and even a thoroughly domesticated dog will bite your face off given enough kicks.

The Beginnings

Rudyard Kipling

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late
With long arrears to make good,
When the English began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy-willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the English began to hate.

Their voices were even and low,
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show,
When the English began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd,
It was not taught by the State.
No man spoke it aloud,
When the English began to hate.

It was not suddenly bred,
It will not swiftly abate,
Through the chill years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the English began to hate.

[TheTexan]

I understand, still a good site though.



I'm on the record as hacking at the branches, salting the roots, spraying Round Up over the whole fucking thing.

Tough fucking tree man.

Last time I needed a tree to be cut down I just hired Mexicans to do it.

[TheTexan]

The root is people who want big government

Indeed

[Swordsmyth]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1114672393773912064

1114672393773912064

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1114673163076395009

1114673163076395009

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1114673372275728385

1114673372275728385

[Zippyjuan]

Tweet #1. We are focusing on Ports of Entry.
Tweet #2. We are not focusing on Ports of Entry.

[Swordsmyth]

Tweet #1. We are focusing on Ports of Entry.
Tweet #2. We are not focusing on Ports of Entry.
Tweet #1 we are shifting people FROM Ports of Entry to the rest of the border

[Zippyjuan]

Tweet #1 we are shifting people FROM Ports of Entry to the rest of the border

He sent 750 to the San Antonio area ports of entry.

[Swordsmyth]

He sent 750 to the San Antonio area ports of entry.
Link?

He says he is taking them FROM Ports of Entry and that will cause delays.

[ATruepatriot]

Link?

He says he is taking them FROM Ports of Entry and that will cause delays.

Actually he is right... I read it earlier also. If he can't find the link I will.

[devil21]

^^^^^^^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHmH1xQ2Pf4

Too appropriate...

[Wooden Indian]

Last time I needed a tree to be cut down I just hired Mexicans to do it.

Came home... you're daughter was knocked up and the money was missing off of your dresser... I've seen it a thousand times.

[johnwk]

Trump is being creative in the manner he is closing down the border in order to send a shockwave to the Mexican Government and encourage it to start doing its part in stopping the flow of Central Americans flooding through Mexico on their way to America to get free government cheese.


The Trump Administration is re-assigning 750 border agents away from ports of entry and making them available to deal with the flood of unwanted border crossers. This of course slows down commercial movement of goods at ports of entry, and the pain is being felt by Mexico and encouraging it to do its part to stop the caravans from Central America.


Got to hand it to President Trump to find a way to act in America’s best interests when the Democrat Leadership, and tyrannical judges, have been using their office of public trust to flood our country with the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, disease carrying and criminals of Central America.https://community.hannity.com/images/emoji/apple/+1.png?v=6
JWK

[Swordsmyth]

Trump is being creative in the manner he is closing down the border in order to send a shockwave to the Mexican Government and encourage it to start doing its part in stopping the flow of Central Americans flooding through Mexico on their way to America to get free government cheese.


The Trump Administration is re-assigning 750 border agents away from ports of entry and making them available to deal with the flood of unwanted border crossers. This of course slows down commercial movement of goods at ports of entry, and the pain is being felt by Mexico and encouraging it to do its part to stop the caravans from Central America.


Got to hand it to President Trump to find a way to act in America’s best interests when the Democrat Leadership, and tyrannical judges, have been using their office of public trust to flood our country with the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, disease carrying and criminals of Central America.
https://community.hannity.com/images/emoji/apple/+1.png?v=6


JWK

He has to juggle many different political and economic issues as well as the border and I don't know that he could do much better than he has, I'm hoping he has gotten to a point where he is able to start doing even more.

We need to take back the House in 2020 so we can fix our broken laws.

[Zippyjuan]

He has to juggle many different political and economic issues as well as the border and I don't know that he could do much better than he has, I'm hoping he has gotten to a point where he is able to start doing even more.

We need to take back the House in 2020 so we can fix our broken laws.

What laws were fixed when Republicans did have the House?

[Swordsmyth]

What laws were fixed when Republicans did have the House?
No immigration laws will be fixed if Demoncrats hold the House, that doesn't mean that they necessarily will be fixed if Republicans hold, there are other factors that need to be taken care of as well.

[Zippyjuan]

No immigration laws will be fixed if Demoncrats hold the House, that doesn't mean that they necessarily will be fixed if Republicans hold, there are other factors that need to be taken care of as well.

So they did nothing when they had the chance. What makes you think things will be any different next time?

[Swordsmyth]

So they did nothing when they had the chance. What makes you think things will be any different next time?
We won't have the same Speaker of the House and many of the Republican Reps will be different.

[johnwk]

What laws were fixed when Republicans did have the House?

Stop with the what-about-ism, and focus on securing out border so we are not overrun with the world's poverty stricken which would totally destroy our way of life.

JWK


There is no surer way to weaken, subdue, demoralize and then conquer a prosperous and freedom loving people than by allowing and encouraging the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, criminal and diseased populations of other countries to invade that country, and make the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such invaders.

[Swordsmyth]

Stop with the what-about-ism, and focus on securing out border so we are not overrun with the world's poverty stricken which would totally destroy our way of life.

JWK


There is no surer way to weaken, subdue, demoralize and then conquer a prosperous and freedom loving people than by allowing and encouraging the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, criminal and diseased populations of other countries to invade that country, and make the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such invaders.
That's like asking the devil to cease tempting mankind and preach repentance instead.

[johnwk]

Trump is being creative in the manner he is closing down the border in order to send a shockwave to the Mexican Government and encourage it to start doing its part in stopping the flow of Central Americans flooding through Mexico on their way to America to get free government cheese.


The Trump Administration is re-assigning 750 border agents away from ports of entry and making them available to deal with the flood of unwanted border crossers. This of course slows down commercial movement of goods at ports of entry, and the pain is being felt by Mexico and encouraging it to do its part to stop the caravans from Central America.


Got to hand it to President Trump to find a way to act in America’s best interests when the Democrat Leadership, and tyrannical judges, have been using their office of public trust to flood our country with the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, disease carrying and criminals of Central America.https://community.hannity.com/images/emoji/apple/+1.png?v=6
JWK

He has to juggle many different political and economic issues as well as the border and I don't know that he could do much better than he has, I'm hoping he has gotten to a point where he is able to start doing even more.

We need to take back the House in 2020 so we can fix our broken laws.


Slow walking commerce at ports of entry is a brilliant move, and has already encouraged Mexico to start cooperating with the United States in stopping the flow of caravan participants from Central America.


JWK


Illegal immigration is now costing American citizens over $18 billion a year in healthcare costs alone! Far more than the measly $5.7 billion asked for to build a wall! LINK (https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2018/02/26/how-american-citizens-finance-health-care-for-undocumented-immigrants/#193737f912c4)

[Zippyjuan]

Slow walking commerce at ports of entry is a brilliant move, and has already encouraged Mexico to start cooperating with the United States in stopping the flow of caravan participants from Central America.


JWK


Illegal immigration is now costing American citizens over $18 billion a year in healthcare costs alone! Far more than the measly $5.7 billion asked for to build a wall! LINK (https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2018/02/26/how-american-citizens-finance-health-care-for-undocumented-immigrants/#193737f912c4)

Who cares if it also costs US companies and consumers $billions? And jobs if it goes on long enough.

[Swordsmyth]

Who cares if it also costs US companies and consumers $billions? And jobs if it goes on long enough.

We will all lose more if the invasion is allowed to continue.

[Zippyjuan]

We will all lose more if the invasion is allowed to continue.

Good use of your key words from the book. "lose". "invasion".

[Swordsmyth]

Good use of your key words from the book. "lose". "invasion".
Accuracy is always important.

[enhanced_deficit]

Theories among some Breitbart readers about MAGA statements on path to DACA and recent tweets were aimed to create a border rush seem far fetched, there is no proof on the ground. Granted MAGA's top funder is Adelson, he's also supported by GOP base and his priority is base, not Adelson.

[Swordsmyth]

Theories among some Breitbart readers about MAGA statements on path to DACA and recent tweets were aimed to create a border rush seem far fetched, there is no proof on the ground. Granted MAGA's top funder is Adelson, he's also supported by GOP base and his priority is base, not Adelson.
:sleeping:

[johnwk]

Slow walking commerce at ports of entry is a brilliant move, and has already encouraged Mexico to start cooperating with the United States in stopping the flow of caravan participants from Central America.


JWK


Illegal immigration is now costing American citizens over $18 billion a year in healthcare costs alone! Far more than the measly $5.7 billion asked for to build a wall! LINK (https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2018/02/26/how-american-citizens-finance-health-care-for-undocumented-immigrants/#193737f912c4)



Who cares if it also costs US companies and consumers $billions? And jobs if it goes on long enough.


If this and if that. The truth is, Mexico will suffer far greater than the United States, and the policy is already getting the Mexican government to cooperate in stopping the tidal wave of Central American migrants seeking economic relief in the United States. And beside, protecting our way of life and the prosperity we enjoy is not always free. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices to protect our way of life.


JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon the federal government for its subsistence through massive illegal immigration, we can then bribe the invaders for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ The Democrat Party Leadership’s Marxist game plan.

[enhanced_deficit]

These are normal political fluctuations, let's wait to see where he settles in sync with his widely respected top funder Adelson.