PDA

View Full Version : Border crossing shut down after 'large and unruly group' forms in Mexico




Swordsmyth
07-01-2019, 02:53 PM
U.S. authorities closed an international border bridge in El Paso, Texas, early Monday in response to Central American and Cuban migrants protesting on the Mexican side of the border.

The protesters in Ciudad Juárez were chanting "vamos a cruzar" — "we are going to cross" — before Customs and Border Protection officials closed the bridge about 2 a.m., reported CNN. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/01/us/el-paso-border-protests-shutdown/index.html)

The decision to close the bridge came as "a large and unruly group formed on the Mexican side," according to CBP spokesman Roger Maier.

Local TV station KTSM reported (https://www.ktsm.com/news/protest-closes-paso-del-norte-bridge/) the group was comprised of about 250 Cuban and Salvadoran migrants; Ciudad Juarez newspaper El Diario reported (https://diario.mx/juarez/cierran-puente-paso-del-norte-por-protesta-de-migrantes-20190701-1534056.html) the group was comprised of Cubans and Hondurans.

The Mexican National Guard deployed troops to the area, but they did not engage the protesters, according to El Diario.

CBP closed all lanes of traffic on the Paso del Norte Bridge, and reopened pedestrian lanes at 5:25 a.m., Meier said in an email.

More at: https://thehill.com/latino/451223-border-crossing-shut-down-after-large-and-unruly-group-forms-in-mexico

jkr
07-01-2019, 03:19 PM
Visgoths?

PAF
07-01-2019, 03:23 PM
Trump could say:

“As a newfound ex-Democrat who wants your republican vote, I am here to make a special announcement to my fellow Americans.

We seem to have a crisis, one that I take responsibility for exasperating when I threatened to build an expensive, however useless, wall.

This has caused a major influx of people since I took office, increased spending, growing the federal government in the way of border patrol DHS, ICE, and other government employees, while threatening private/business properties and contract rights, and close-knit generational communities. All of this affects a $1 Billion per day market place, while exasperating the War on Drugs, which as we all know needs to end.

I hereby call for an emergency Executive Order, not to give $4.5 Billion in additional incentives, or money to fund the United Nations and African Refugees like I did the last time, but to cease all incentives, because the American people can no longer afford it.

If foreigners wish to visit this Land of the Free Home of the Brave, we will welcome your money to expand tourism and other markets. If you are planning to arrive for other purposes, remember that there is no free money or services available.

If I am not re-elected next term because of this Order, so be it, I will go down as the greatest president of history. Thank you very much.”



But he won’t.

Swordsmyth
07-01-2019, 03:27 PM
Trump could say:

“As a newfound ex-Democrat who wants your republican vote, I am here to make a special announcement to my fellow Americans.

We seem to have a crisis, one that I take responsibility for exasperating when I threatened to build an expensive, however useless, wall.

This has caused a major influx of people since I took office, increased spending, growing the federal government in the way of border patrol DHS, ICE, and other government employees, while threatening private/business properties and contract rights, and close-knit generational communities. All of this affects a $1 Billion per day market place, while exasperating the War on Drugs, which as we all know needs to end.

I hereby call for an emergency Executive Order, not to give $4.5 Billion in additional incentives, or money to fund the United Nations and African Refugees like I did the last time, but to cease all incentives, because the American people can no longer afford it.

If foreigners wish to visit this Land of the Free Home of the Brave, we will welcome your money to expand tourism and other markets. If you are planning to arrive for other purposes, remember that there is no free money or services available.

If I am not re-elected next term because of this Order, so be it, I will go down as the greatest president of history. Thank you very much.”



But he won’t.
He doesn't have the authority and that wouldn't be good enough.

His policies haven't caused an increase, the globalists did to try and beat the increase in border security he is enacting.

Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

PAF
07-01-2019, 03:28 PM
He doesn't have the authority and that wouldn't be good enough.

His policies haven't cause an increase, the globalists did to try and beat the increase in border security he is enacting.

Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

Get lost, statist pro-government-growth lib.

oyarde
07-01-2019, 03:30 PM
Visgoths?

Yep pretty much what you are going to get with cubans , Salvadorans and Hondurans .

AngryCanadian
07-01-2019, 03:32 PM
Get lost, statist pro-government-growth lib.

The globalists are everywhere in govs even in Italy's gov there are factions trying to free that SeaWatch captain.

Swordsmyth
07-01-2019, 03:34 PM
Get lost, statist pro-government-growth lib.

Get lost, globalist crypto-commie.

PAF
07-01-2019, 03:38 PM
Are you pro open borders to now?

You are another one.

You have no comprehension of free markets, how this Fed.gov is killing our freedom, while charging us an endless supply of frn’s to line the pockets of the corporatists/NWO. Furthermore, you have no insight how each one of the Bill if Rights are being destroyed by SS’s “solutions”.

There is a neat course that you can take: “Liberty Classroom” Please look into it.

Swordsmyth
07-01-2019, 03:44 PM
You are another one.

You have no comprehension of free markets, how this Fed.gov is killing our freedom, while charging us an endless supply of frn’s to line the pockets of the corporatists/NWO. Furthermore, you have no insight how each one of the Bill if Rights are being destroyed by SS’s “solutions”.

There is a neat course that you can take: “Liberty Classroom” Please look into it.
:sleeping:

PAF
07-01-2019, 03:47 PM
:sleeping:

You snooze you loose. Wake up out of your stupor.

Or better yet, quit your pro-growth-government forum job so I don’t have to pay your lousy pension.

Swordsmyth
07-01-2019, 03:53 PM
You snooze you loose. Wake up out of your stupor.

Or better yet, quit your pro-growth-government forum job so I don’t have to pay your lousy pension.
I can't help falling asleep when you repeat your drivel over and over.

Move to Mexico and stop betraying my country.

PAF
07-01-2019, 03:56 PM
I can't help falling asleep when you repeat your drivel over and over.

Move to Mexico and stop betraying my country.


Show me your private property deed, collectivist.

Swordsmyth
07-01-2019, 03:59 PM
Show me your private property deed, collectivist.

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FUYmjZ1eXATg%2F maxresdefault.jpg&f=1

PAF
07-01-2019, 04:01 PM
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FUYmjZ1eXATg%2F maxresdefault.jpg&f=1

That is not a private property deed, nor a contract that I signed.

See how much you think you know, centralist-planner supporter?

jkr
07-01-2019, 04:12 PM
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FUYmjZ1eXATg%2F maxresdefault.jpg&f=1

yep

and my family signed it in blood and treasure

it is UNALIENABLE

AngryCanadian
07-01-2019, 05:26 PM
You are another one.

You have no comprehension of free markets, how this Fed.gov is killing our freedom, while charging us an endless supply of frn’s to line the pockets of the corporatists/NWO. Furthermore, you have no insight how each one of the Bill if Rights are being destroyed by SS’s “solutions”.

There is a neat course that you can take: “Liberty Classroom” Please look into it.

So according to you. Open Border is good for free markets?



you have no insight how each one of the Bill if Rights are being destroyed by SS’s “solutions”.

There is a neat course that you can take: “Liberty Classroom” Please look into it.
I don't remember anywhere in the bill of rights where it states support for open borders. Or such ideology.

PAF
07-01-2019, 05:36 PM
yep

and my family signed it in blood and treasure


Your family may have, mine did not. I did have family members mutilated and killed in some of the banker wars, though.




it is UNALIENABLE



Rights, as in the Bills of, which provide no provision for prosecuting government officials who violate the list of 10. The rest of the Constitution is not UNALIENABLE, AFAIK.

PAF
07-01-2019, 05:46 PM
So according to you. Open Border is good for free markets?


I don't remember anywhere in the bill of rights where it states support for open borders. Or such ideology.


The list of 10 Natural Rights outlined in the Bill of Rights does not support restrictionism either. Restrictionism, without being suspected of a crime against person or property, without a warrant, without facing the accuser and a speedy trial, does violate the Bill of Rights.

There is a thread in the Ron Paul sub forum: “Ron Paul’s Solution”, you should check it out. There’s even a nifty map of all the land the Fed took over:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?536269-Ron-Paul%92s-Solution

Swordsmyth
07-01-2019, 05:54 PM
The list of 10 Natural Rights outlined in the Bill of Rights does not support restrictionism either. Restrictionism, without being suspected of a crime against person or property, without a warrant, without facing the accuser and a speedy trial, does violate the Bill of Rights.

There is a thread in the Ron Paul sub forum: “Ron Paul’s Solution”, you should check it out. There’s even a nifty map of all the land the Fed took over:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?536269-Ron-Paul%92s-Solution
LOL

Nowhere in the BoR does it give foreigners the right to invade, foreigners posses their rights in their territory, the founders would have laughed you out of the country:


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Anti Federalist http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6821671#post6821671)

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


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

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




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.



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Anti Federalist http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6777512#post6777512)

"[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."




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






"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

jkr
07-01-2019, 05:55 PM
Your family may have, mine did not. I did have family members mutilated and killed in some of the banker wars, though.



Rights, as in the Bills of, which provide no provision for prosecuting government officials who violate the list of 10.

42 usc 1983?


And its Unalienable cause we sez it is... I think that's how it's supposed to work

Thank you Carl Miller!

PAF
07-01-2019, 06:03 PM
42 usc 1983?


And its Unalienable cause we sez it is... I think that's how it's supposed to work

Thank you Carl Miller!


Carl Miller is good I listen to him time permitting. You are missing the bigger picture, as far as everything that I have been ranting about. I guess it is time to move on... trump did a hell of a number convincing people that nationalism and support of the Fed supersedes the right of the individual. That’s why they propped him up after 8 years of Obama and 8 years of Bush. The cycle must continue.

Swordsmyth
07-01-2019, 06:07 PM
I guess it is time to move on...

"Don't let the door hit you on the way out" - Thomas Jefferson :p
Danke, he is promising to leave again.

Danke
07-01-2019, 06:09 PM
"Don't let the door hit you on the way out" - Thomas Jefferson :p
@Danke (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=6186), he is promising to leave again.


He/she won't.

Swordsmyth
07-01-2019, 06:15 PM
He/she won't.
I don't expect it to either, that kind has no honor.

PAF
07-01-2019, 06:24 PM
I don't expect it to either, that kind has no honor.

Wow, I graduated to “it” lol

No, I’m not going anywhere, someone has to defend the site and Ron Paul’s mission against you and Little Danke Do Something.

I’m a he, btw.

spudea
07-01-2019, 06:29 PM
You are another one.

You have no comprehension of free markets, how this Fed.gov is killing our freedom, while charging us an endless supply of frn’s to line the pockets of the corporatists/NWO. Furthermore, you have no insight how each one of the Bill if Rights are being destroyed by SS’s “solutions”.

There is a neat course that you can take: “Liberty Classroom” Please look into it.

Just save time and just chant your real feelings: "NO BORDERS NO WALL NO USA AT ALL"

PAF
07-01-2019, 06:32 PM
Just save time and just chant your real feelings: "NO BORDERS NO WALL NO USA AT ALL"

I was just here thinking, why don’t you, SwordShill and Danke Do Something just chant, End the Fed Bill of Rights.

Swordsmyth
07-01-2019, 06:33 PM
I was just here thinking, why don’t you, SwordShill and Danke Do Something just chant, End the Fed Bill of Rights.
The people who wrote the BoR are on our side.

But you will continue to ignore that and spout your idiotic mantra.

PAF
07-01-2019, 06:37 PM
The people who wrote the BoR are on our side.

But you will continue to ignore that and spout your idiotic mantra.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?536269-Ron-Paul%92s-Solution&

phill4paul
07-01-2019, 06:41 PM
Trump could say:

“As a newfound ex-Democrat who wants your republican vote, I am here to make a special announcement to my fellow Americans.

We seem to have a crisis, one that I take responsibility for exasperating when I threatened to build an expensive, however useless, wall.

This has caused a major influx of people since I took office, increased spending, growing the federal government in the way of border patrol DHS, ICE, and other government employees, while threatening private/business properties and contract rights, and close-knit generational communities. All of this affects a $1 Billion per day market place, while exasperating the War on Drugs, which as we all know needs to end.

I hereby call for an emergency Executive Order, not to give $4.5 Billion in additional incentives, or money to fund the United Nations and African Refugees like I did the last time, but to cease all incentives, because the American people can no longer afford it.

If foreigners wish to visit this Land of the Free Home of the Brave, we will welcome your money to expand tourism and other markets. If you are planning to arrive for other purposes, remember that there is no free money or services available.

If I am not re-elected next term because of this Order, so be it, I will go down as the greatest president of history. Thank you very much.”



But he won’t.

What are you gonna do about those 'anchor' babies. Deny them citizenship? Deny them this countries largess? The itty bitty babies are American citizens. You can't just send their parents home and put them up for adoption. It's for the chillin's!

Zippyjuan
07-01-2019, 06:44 PM
What are you gonna do about those 'anchor' babies. Deny them citizenship? Deny them this countries largess? The itty bitty babies are American citizens. You can't just send their parents home and put them up for adoption. It's for the chillin's!

You can try to change the Constitution on that.

phill4paul
07-01-2019, 06:46 PM
You can try to change the Constitution on that.

Until the Constitution can be changed I'll just prefer to keep them the hell out.

Swordsmyth
07-01-2019, 06:47 PM
You can try to change the Constitution on that.
No need, invaders don't get birthright citizenship.

Zippyjuan
07-01-2019, 07:03 PM
The people who wrote the BoR are on our side.

But you will continue to ignore that and spout your idiotic mantra.

What does the Bill of Rights say about immigration?

https://nccs.net/blogs/americas-founding-documents/bill-of-rights-amendments-1-10


Congress of the United States

begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg Speaker of the House of Representatives John Adams, Vice-President of the United States and President of the Senate.

Attest, John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives. Sam. A. Otis Secretary of the Senate. *On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the state legislatures twelve proposed amendments, two of which, having to do with Congressional representation and Congressional pay, were not adopted. The remaining ten amendments became the Bill of Rights.

Amendment 1
(- Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2
(- The Right to Bear Arms)

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Amendment 3
(- The Housing of Soldiers)

No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment 4
(- Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5
(- Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Amendment 6
(- Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment 7
(- Rights in Civil Cases)

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 8
(- Excessive Bail, Fines, and Punishments Forbidden)

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 9
(- Other Rights Kept by the People)

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10
(- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Hmm. Nothing about immigration or borders or even citizenship in the Bill of Rights.

Swordsmyth
07-01-2019, 07:05 PM
What does the Bill of Rights say about immigration?

https://nccs.net/blogs/americas-founding-documents/bill-of-rights-amendments-1-10



Hmm. Nothing about immigration or borders or even citizenship in the Bill of Rights.
LOL

That's not what I said, they had already dealt with it in the Constitution.

Nowhere in the BoR does it give foreigners the right to invade, foreigners posses their rights in their territory, the founders would have laughed you out of the country:


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Anti Federalist http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6821671#post6821671)

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


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

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




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.



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Anti Federalist http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6777512#post6777512)

"[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."




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






"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

Pauls' Revere
07-01-2019, 07:49 PM
Trump could say:

“As a newfound ex-Democrat who wants your republican vote, I am here to make a special announcement to my fellow Americans.

We seem to have a crisis, one that I take responsibility for exasperating when I threatened to build an expensive, however useless, wall.

This has caused a major influx of people since I took office, increased spending, growing the federal government in the way of border patrol DHS, ICE, and other government employees, while threatening private/business properties and contract rights, and close-knit generational communities. All of this affects a $1 Billion per day market place, while exasperating the War on Drugs, which as we all know needs to end.

I hereby call for an emergency Executive Order, not to give $4.5 Billion in additional incentives, or money to fund the United Nations and African Refugees like I did the last time, but to cease all incentives, because the American people can no longer afford it.

If foreigners wish to visit this Land of the Free Home of the Brave, we will welcome your money to expand tourism and other markets. If you are planning to arrive for other purposes, remember that there is no free money or services available.

If I am not re-elected next term because of this Order, so be it, I will go down as the greatest president of history. Thank you very much.”



But he won’t.


I'm down with that.

AngryCanadian
07-01-2019, 10:56 PM
The list of 10 Natural Rights outlined in the Bill of Rights does not support restrictionism either. Restrictionism, without being suspected of a crime against person or property, without a warrant, without facing the accuser and a speedy trial, does violate the Bill of Rights.

There is a thread in the Ron Paul sub forum: “Ron Paul’s Solution”, you should check it out. There’s even a nifty map of all the land the Fed took over:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?536269-Ron-Paul%92s-Solution


The list of 10 Natural Rights outlined in the Bill of Rights does not support restrictionism either. Restrictionism
You do realize that mass open borders is going to cause an massive economic crisis in America right? and on its health care? And i am pretty sure in the bill rights it doesnt support massive open borders as you are openly suggesting for it.

PAF
07-02-2019, 04:32 AM
You do realize that mass open borders is going to cause an massive economic crisis in America right? and on its health care? And i am pretty sure in the bill rights it doesnt support massive open borders as you are openly suggesting for it.

Under the current policy, yes, of course. Which everybody on this forum (and all republicans) should be trying to change. But it seems the BoR restrictionists who want walls are evading the root cause, thus we will end up poorer and less free. Interesting enough, most here have not taken the time to visit the border to see for themselves, I actually have a couple of times.

This is not a new trend, our government has been doing this for over a hundred years, people are not able to learn from mistakes; government creates conditions for problems, then applies government “solutions”, peat and repeat, come and get it free stuff for all.