PDA

View Full Version : Immigration and Freedom




PAF
08-12-2019, 08:06 AM
The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration

By Andrew P. Napolitano


ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The tone of the debate over the nation’s immigration laws has taken an ugly turn as some office-seekers offer solutions to problems that don’t exist.

The natural rights of all persons consist of areas of human behavior for which we do not need and will not accept the need for a government permission slip.

We all expect that the government will leave us alone when we think, speak, publish, worship, defend ourselves, enter our homes, choose our mates or travel. The list of natural rights is endless.

We expect this not because we are Americans, but because we are persons and these rights are integral to our nature. We expect this in America because the Constitution was written to restrain the government from interfering with natural rights.

When these first principles are violated to advance a political cause or to quell public fear, those whose rights are violated because of an immutable characteristic of birth, not because of personal culpability, become the victims of ugly public indifference or official government repression. The American history of government treatment of Africans and their offspring and the European history of government treatment of the Jewish people are poignant and terrible examples of this.

Today, the potential victims of public indifference and government repression are Hispanics in America. Hispanics here without documentation are being demonized because of the politics of nativism. Nativism — we are exceptional; we are better people than they are; we were here first — is very dangerous and leads to ugly results.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution underscore the truism that all persons have the same natural rights, irrespective of where their mothers were when they delivered them.


The right to travel is a natural right, even though it was not until 1969 that the Supreme Court recognized it as such. The court protects natural rights by imposing a very high bar for the government to meet before it can interfere with them, absent due process.


The high bar is called strict scrutiny. It requires that the government demonstrate an articulated area of jurisdiction and a compelling state interest served by the least restrictive alternative before it can treat a person differently or uniquely because of his or her place of birth. A compelling state interest is one that is necessary to preserve life or the state’s existence, and it must be addressed using the least force and causing the least interference with personal liberty possible.

This test was written so as to give the government wiggle room in a crisis and to make it intentionally difficult — nearly impossible — to write laws that apply only to discrete groups when membership in them is determined by birth.


But the Constitution itself — from which all federal powers derive — does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration, only over naturalization.


Thus, when the government’s motivation for enacting immigration laws is to further genuine compelling foreign policy goals, the laws will be upheld. But when the government’s motivation is nativism or fear or hatred or favoritism, strict scrutiny will operate to defeat those laws.

Shortly after the first federal immigration statute was enacted in the 1880s — the Chinese Exclusion Act — the Supreme Court ruled that aliens, whether here legally or illegally, are persons, and the Constitution protects all persons from governmental deprivation of life, liberty and property without due process.

In the same era, the court held that all babies born here of alien mothers are citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment requires this, and its language is inclusive: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States…” Though written to protect former slaves, its language is not limited to them.

Some well-intended folks have argued that the language “all persons” doesn’t really mean “all” because it is modified by “and subject to the jurisdiction (of the United States).” But that language refers to the offspring of mothers who, though here, are still subject to a foreign government — like foreign diplomats, agents or military. It does not refer to those fleeing foreign governments. It does not — and cannot — impose an intent requirement upon infants.

My guess is that nearly “all persons” reading this are beneficiaries of this clause because they — you — were born here.

When the history of our times is written, it might relate that the majority repressed the rights of minorities by demonizing them using appeals to group prejudice — by blaming entire ethnic groups for the criminal behavior of some few members of those groups.

That history might reflect that this was done for short-term political gain.

If that happens, it will have changed America far more radically and dangerously than any wave of undocumented immigrants did.

And that would be profoundly and perhaps irreparably un-American.


https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/2/andrew-napolitano-constitution-doesnt-give-governm/

PAF
08-12-2019, 08:14 AM
"I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Clinton told an audience at a campaign stop Nov. 9, 2015. "And I do think you have to control your borders."

Clinton voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which President George W. Bush signed after the measure cleared the Republican-held Congress. It authorized about 700 miles of fencing along certain stretches of land between the border of the United States and Mexico.

The act also authorized the use of more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting to curb illegal immigration, and the use of advanced technology such as satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Then-Sen. Clinton voted in favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19. (Notably, then-Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer voted for it, too.)

Originally, the act called on the Department of Homeland Security to install at least two layers of reinforced fencing along some stretches of the border.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/27/cal-thomas/did-hillary-clinton-support-border-wall-mexico/


____


President Trump on Sunday quoted Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton supporting border security, pushing Democrats to relent in the standoff over spending on a border wall.

The president used the quotes to hammer home his message that “walls work.”

In a series of tweets, Mr. Trump quoted Mr. Obama in 2005 saying, “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked.”

He quoted Mrs. Clinton in 2015 saying, “I voted, when I was a Senator, to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.”
https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/trump-quotes-clinton-obama-on-border-wall/




Related:

The Feds Move Closer to a $15 Minimum Wage (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?537926-The-Feds-Move-Closer-to-a-15-Minimum-Wage)


Why Is The U.S. Turning Away Immigrants While Employers Need Workers? (https://www.inquirer.com/business/phillydeals/us-immigration-labor-employers-jobs-economy-20190801.html)

"The administration is run by people who believe in sending blunt signals: economic boycotts, expensive new digital and physical surveillance, detention camps for poor people whom they don't want."

Superfluous Man
08-12-2019, 08:18 AM
Get ready for the Judge Swamp label to get thrown in here from the resident Bolshevik contingent.

PAF
08-12-2019, 08:36 AM
Get ready for the Judge Swamp label to get thrown in here from the resident Bolshevik contingent.

+ REP

But because I support the RPF Mission (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1957) and Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity (http://ronpaulinstitute.org/), I will try my best to don't feed the trolls (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510163-What-s-the-point-of-keeping-openly-deceptive-members).

Anti Federalist
08-12-2019, 09:01 AM
Article IV - Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;

This is an invasion.

It is undermining republican government by establishing UniParty communist rule in places like California and soon Texas.

PAF
08-12-2019, 09:18 AM
Get ready for the Judge Swamp label to get thrown in here from the resident Bolshevik contingent.

+ REP

But because I support the RPF Mission (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1957) and Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity (http://ronpaulinstitute.org/), I will try my best to don't feed the trolls (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510163-What-s-the-point-of-keeping-openly-deceptive-members).



This is an invasion.


I attempted to not feed the trolls, however, since "this is an invasion (war)", I feel that I must respond to one who advocates killing and murdering without due process.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_4bBYkEMJ8

Superfluous Man
08-12-2019, 09:32 AM
This is an invasion.

It is undermining republican government by establishing UniParty communist rule in places like California and soon Texas.

The one driving theme of practically every post you've made here in recent years is your own desire to undermine republican government.

Superfluous Man
08-12-2019, 09:33 AM
+ REP

But because I support the RPF Mission (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1957) and Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity (http://ronpaulinstitute.org/), I will try my best to don't feed the trolls (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510163-What-s-the-point-of-keeping-openly-deceptive-members).




I attempted to not feed the trolls, however, since "this is an invasion (war)", I feel that I must respond to one who advocates killing and murdering without due process.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_4bBYkEMJ8

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PAF again."

RJB
08-12-2019, 09:45 AM
+ REP



"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PAF again."

Disgusting. Reported to Mods.

If you want to 69, get a room at a Motel 6.

jkr
08-12-2019, 09:56 AM
so?
what is this "constipation" you speak of?
we are in a bankrupt country being administered into oblivion, the "constipation" is as effective as sam i am...

Ender
08-12-2019, 10:30 AM
Get ready for the Judge Swamp label to get thrown in here from the resident Bolshevik contingent.

Yep- he usually arrives mid-afternoon, so be prepared.:speaknoevil:

Stratovarious
08-12-2019, 10:33 AM
Napolitano has been on our watch list for 18 months, at some point he had flipped his wig
and become a NWO Globalist.
We have thousands of laws that defeat our 'Natural Rights'.
Keeping diseased felons, rapists, and socialists out of our country is no less a Natural Right of ours than
the claim that allowing any thug to enter is a Natural Right of theirs.

If you think foreign Countries have rights to your property, than you shall hand over your
wives to them as well , it is no less a so called natural right for illegals to breed with them than
it is for us to breed with them , if you believe Andrew N, has really uncovered
logic here, then welcome to anarchy , which may not be the worst thing to have, but it
is a million miles from where we are, and starting with allowing all manor of thugs to
invade is the last place we want to start.

I had the greatest respect for Napolitano until he morphed into an antagonistic Globalist, he
has adopted the same role as the RPF Trolls.

Lol at Superf and PAF , calling members other than themselves; Bolsheviks and Trolls .

Superfluous Man
08-12-2019, 10:36 AM
Napolitano has been on our watch list for 18 months, at some point he had flipped his wig
and become a NWO Globalist.

Did he ever hold a different position than what he says in the OP?

What Napolitano says in the OP was the prevailing view on this website from 2008-2012, and was defended in those years by regulars, including ones who have more recently adopted a more statist position and now sound more like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin than Ron Paul supporters.

PAF
08-12-2019, 10:37 AM
Yep- he usually arrives mid-afternoon, so be prepared.:speaknoevil:

As well as a couple of his "followers" :seenoevil: :hearnoevil:

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

PAF
08-12-2019, 10:42 AM
Did he ever hold a different position than what he says in the OP?

What Napolitano says in the OP was the prevailing view on this website from 2008-2012, and was defended in those years by regulars, including ones who have more recently adopted a more statist position and now sound more like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin than Ron Paul supporters.


I suspect they would throw Walter Block under the bus, as well.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/what-it-means-to-be-a-libertarian-who-should-be-included-in-this-honorific/

Ender
08-12-2019, 10:44 AM
Here's Walter Block on Judge Nap:


From: D
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 2:39 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Napolitano’s no libertarian

I love these Trump years. Something about this guy’s presidency that forces people to show who they really are. You and Ron Paul, among others, remain as you have always been, very consistent Libertarians. Thanks!

Others, like Napolitano? Not so much. His opinions on Trump and obstruction are very telling. More on that in a sec.

First, let’s discuss the Libertarian credentials of someone who fashions himself as “Judge”. If I had been appointed or elected as a Magistrate by an Authoritarian govt. and then later became a Libertarian I don’t think I’d find honor in having my fellow citizens (rather forcibly) encouraged to call me “honorable” or “your honor”. And if Judges are honorable, then whose definition of honor do we mean? The government’s definition? Ha. There is no honor among thieves, as it’s said. Is it the same honor bestowed to John McCain, the bloodthirsty and peevish master of War? I won’t belabor the point; you get my drift. Regardless of any of his policy position or principles, Napolitano will need to ditch the Judge-for-a-criminal-cartel honor before he can seriously be thought of as a Libertarian.

And then there’s his opinion that Trump committed obstruction of justice. That’d be a hard one to defend. If Trump committed no crime, then how could anything he did have prevented justice from being served? Justice WAS served. You can’t obstruct when there’s nothing to obstruct. In our legal world, no charges I’d the very definition of “exoneration”. Pax ! D


From: Walter Block [mailto:wblock@loyno.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:53 PM
To: D
Subject: RE: Napolitano’s no libertarian

Dear D:

I agree with you on the obstruction business. But, my friend Andrew is still a libertarian, and a magnificent one. Just because I disagree with an eminent libertarian, doesn’t mean that they cease to be precisely that. Heck, I’ve disagreed with other leading libertarians, Rothbard, Hoppe, Kinsella, Paul, many more. If I followed your reasoning, I’d practically be the only libertarian in the world.

Further, according to the principle you laid out (don’t use statist honorifics), Ron Paul, too, is not a good libertarian, since he often signs off as Congressman Paul. Ditto for his son, Rand Paul, who, after all, is a US Senator.

No, not only is Judge Andrew Napolitano an excellent libertarian, he is one of our leading lights. I would hazard a guess that, next to Congressman Ron Paul, he is now the second most famous libertarian in our movement, well, maybe, tied with Senator Rand Paul.

Best regards,

Walter

Brian4Liberty
08-12-2019, 10:49 AM
+ REP

But because I support the RPF Mission (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1957) and Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity (http://ronpaulinstitute.org/), I will try my best to don't feed the trolls (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510163-What-s-the-point-of-keeping-openly-deceptive-members).

You do not support the site mission any more or less than most other members here. All you are doing is parroting another member.

Stratovarious
08-12-2019, 11:00 AM
+ REP

But because I support the RPF Mission (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1957) and Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity (http://ronpaulinstitute.org/), I will try my best to don't feed the trolls (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510163-What-s-the-point-of-keeping-openly-deceptive-members).
The site mission does not call for you and Superf nor anyone else to call libertarians Trolls and Bosheviks.

Superfluous Man
08-12-2019, 11:03 AM
The site mission does not call for you and Superf nor anyone else to call libertarians Trolls and Bosheviks.

I have never done that.

Superfluous Man
08-12-2019, 11:03 AM
You do not support the site mission any more or less than most other members here. All you are doing is parroting another member.

PAF pretty clearly supports the site mission a lot more than many regular posters here, including some who post quite a lot. You may be right about "most," but most don't post as much as some who seem to be trying to take over the forum.

UWDude
08-12-2019, 11:06 AM
Freedom of Association: candidates for office should be able to make whatever deals with whoever they want while they are running.
They are still private citizens!

SO Trump had every right to collude with Russia to win the elections.

THAT'S FREEDOM!

RJB
08-12-2019, 11:10 AM
The site mission does not call for you and Superf nor anyone else to call libertarians Trolls and Bosheviks.
Etiquette calls for at least waiting until the second page before insulting others.

juleswin
08-12-2019, 11:14 AM
So you must be for open borders right?

Ender
08-12-2019, 11:17 AM
The site mission does not call for you and Superf nor anyone else to call libertarians Trolls and Bosheviks.

Or for you to call others leftist, communists, SJWs, socialists.

How about if EVERYONE stops calling names & actually has real & intelligent dialog about things. We do NOT have to always agree- BUT we can actually learn from one another when showing a little respect.

timosman
08-12-2019, 11:17 AM
So you must be for open borders right?

Just like most suicidal trolls.

Stratovarious
08-12-2019, 11:24 AM
Etiquette calls for at least waiting until the second page before insulting others.

:frog:

UWDude
08-12-2019, 11:28 AM
Or for you to call others leftist, communists, SJWs, socialists.

How about if EVERYONE stops calling names & actually has real & intelligent dialog about things. We do NOT have to always agree- BUT we can actually learn from one another when showing a little respect.

Stop acting like it matters. It doesn't.

there is a reason you do not discuss politics or religion in bars.

There is a reason you do not discuss politics, money or religion in social circles.

Politics are necessarily hostile.

And no matter what the rules, people are always very nasty to each other.

If the rules are enforced with an iron hand, people always find a way to slip in as many insults as they can anyway.

Welcome to the internet.

You can talk like "OMG its driving people away!"

But it isn't.

They come for the hatred and flames.

just

like

you

You are just another loud screecher trying to tell everybody to shut up during a brawl.

Eventually, the sceecher screams louder and louder, and the brawl quiets for a bit....

...and then, the screecher starts running their own jaw, about how they see things, (and what do you know, they aren't neutral at all) and the brawl instantly pops back up to full tilt again.

Ender
08-12-2019, 12:03 PM
Stop acting like it matters. It doesn't.

there is a reason you do not discuss politics or religion in bars.

There is a reason you do not discuss politics, money or religion in social circles.

Politics are necessarily hostile.

And no matter what the rules, people are always very nasty to each other.

If the rules are enforced with an iron hand, people always find a way to slip in as many insults as they can anyway.

Welcome to the internet.

You can talk like "OMG its driving people away!"

But it isn't.

They come for the hatred and flames.

just

like

you

You are just another loud screecher trying to tell everybody to shut up during a brawl.

Eventually, the sceecher screams louder and louder, and the brawl quiets for a bit....

...and then, the screecher starts running their own jaw, about how they see things, (and what do you know, they aren't neutral at all) and the brawl instantly pops back up to full tilt again.

LOL- whatever.......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baH16TT1tLs

Superfluous Man
08-12-2019, 01:04 PM
So you must be for open borders right?

I support the approach of the man this website is named after.

There was a time when we would have people come here from time to time calling for tougher immigration restrictions and criticizing Ron Paul for being for more open borders than any of the other Republican candidates and the regulars here would rally to the defense of his libertarian positions. Some of us are still doing that.

Anti Federalist
08-12-2019, 01:19 PM
The one driving theme of practically every post you've made here in recent years is your own desire to undermine republican government.

"I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

Anti Federalist
08-12-2019, 01:20 PM
I attempted to not feed the trolls, however, since "this is an invasion (war)", I feel that I must respond to one who advocates killing and murdering without due process.

"I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

Anti Federalist
08-12-2019, 01:21 PM
I support the approach of the man this website is named after.

There was a time when we would have people come here from time to time calling for tougher immigration restrictions and criticizing Ron Paul for being for more open borders than any of the other Republican candidates and the regulars here would rally to the defense of his libertarian positions. Some of us are still doing that.

How libertarian is the California Communist UniParty government that is in place because of one reason: invaders?

Anti Federalist
08-12-2019, 01:22 PM
Or for you to call others leftist, communists, SJWs, socialists.

How about if EVERYONE stops calling names & actually has real & intelligent dialog about things. We do NOT have to always agree- BUT we can actually learn from one another when showing a little respect.

I do try.

Swordsmyth
08-12-2019, 02:31 PM
The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration

WRONG:


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.

Swordsmyth
08-12-2019, 02:36 PM
Ron Paul's position from 2007:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:




[*=left]Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
[*=left]Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
[*=left]No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
[*=left]No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
[*=left]End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
[*=left]Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.





http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26




We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country

Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law.

No amnesty.

End birthright citizenship

current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity.

Son_of_Liberty90
08-12-2019, 02:40 PM
Immigration is fine, but we already take in 1,000,000 LEGAL immigrants per year.

We probably have over 50,000,000 ILLEGALS in the country now. With those numbers, that's several states worth. Most are probably nice people, but also many are people with no loyalty to this country, who most send back their earnings to families abroad.

The US has tons of people out of work, homeless that could use the jobs illegals are taking. This argument for "not enough workers" is ridiculous. Of course $15 minimum wage just makes this situation worse.

106459
08-12-2019, 02:40 PM
Lol. You guys do a really great job showing your integrity. Frothing at the mouth before anyone even replies to your post. Just straight up circle-jerking. That's embarrassing.

But that sums up the purpose of this thread perfectly well - "You're wrong, and we're right." Ok, great. Let's get the secession going, it's become evident our lifestyles are wholly incompatible with one another. Best of luck to you.

But, to actually add some discourse for anyone interested in reading -- Napolitano's article really doesn't hold up to scrutiny.





Today, the potential victims of public indifference and government repression are Hispanics in America. Hispanics here without documentation are being demonized because of the politics of nativism. Nativism — we are exceptional; we are better people than they are; we were here first — is very dangerous and leads to ugly results.


Wrong. No one's saying we're better than they are. We're saying they're not citizens of this country. They're not supposed to be here.



The right to travel is a natural right, even though it was not until 1969 that the Supreme Court recognized it as such. The court protects natural rights by imposing a very high bar for the government to meet before it can interfere with them, absent due process.


Really? The right to travel? And that right has absolutely no limitations? People can just stride right up into Area 51, or better yet, a nuclear warhead just because they have the right to travel. Good to know.



Thus, when the government’s motivation for enacting immigration laws is to further genuine compelling foreign policy goals, the laws will be upheld. But when the government’s motivation is nativism or fear or hatred or favoritism, strict scrutiny will operate to defeat those laws.


What??? Lmfao. Let me get this straight -- Napolitano stated our government only has the right to write U.S. immigration law when it has the explicit purpose of "strong-arming" (running) other countries' governments? Oh yeah. That's exactly what I want our government to do -- run other countries' governments. ...Write laws for the purpose of governing our own society? Nah, that's stupid.



Shortly after the first federal immigration statute was enacted in the 1880s — the Chinese Exclusion Act — the Supreme Court ruled that aliens, whether here legally or illegally, are persons, and the Constitution protects all persons from governmental deprivation of life, liberty and property without due process.


They do get due process. At some point, they're going to do something that requires them to provide valid ID/proof of citizenship. You're not a citizen? You don't belong here.



( The Fourteenth Amendment requires this, and its language is inclusive: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States…” Though written to protect former slaves, its language is not limited to them.)

Some well-intended folks have argued that the language “all persons” doesn’t really mean “all” because it is modified by “and subject to the jurisdiction (of the United States).” But that language refers to the offspring of mothers who, though here, are still subject to a foreign government — like foreign diplomats, agents or military. It does not refer to those fleeing foreign governments. It does not — and cannot — impose an intent requirement upon infants.


Oh. How nice of Napolitano to arbitrarily (on the basis of personal whim, rather than any reason or system) decide what the Constitution means. Sorry. The word is AND. Meaning both.
-Really, what is he arguing here? That anyone can just waltz across the border and then declare themselves a citizen of the United States? How exactly does that work?




When the history of our times is written, it might relate that the majority repressed the rights of minorities by demonizing them using appeals to group prejudice — by blaming entire ethnic groups for the criminal behavior of some few members of those groups.


Wrong. I don't think I've seen arguments stating "We got these 3 gosh darned Mexicans killing all our gosh darned white women, we gots'ta THROW EM ALL OUT!!

-I'm pretty sure that the obvious has been stated - that they have a different culture, and the left is all too happy to invite them in so that they can obtain an artificial 51% majority and tyrannize the 49%. ...So, the left is more than welcome to invite endless foreigners and fundamentally transform America, but I have 0 recourse to maintain my current way of life? Ok.

Superfluous Man
08-12-2019, 02:48 PM
No one's saying we're better than they are. We're saying they're not citizens of this country. They're not supposed to be here.
This is nonsense and has never been the case in the history of the USA. Where did you get the idea that only US citizens are supposed to be here?


They do get due process. At some point, they're going to do something that requires them to provide valid ID/proof of citizenship. You're not a citizen? You don't belong here.
That's not due process. If you support due process, then you do not support laws that require us to have papers that we have to show in order to prove we have a right to be here.

Superfluous Man
08-12-2019, 02:49 PM
Immigration is fine, but we already take in 1,000,000 LEGAL immigrants per year.


You say that as if you think that's a lot.


The US has tons of people out of work, homeless that could use the jobs illegals are taking.

Anybody who would make this argument doesn't even begin to grasp the basic principles of this website. You might as join the crowd who thinks robots and self-checkout lanes cost us jobs.

Swordsmyth
08-12-2019, 02:58 PM
This is nonsense and has never been the case in the history of the USA. Where did you get the idea that only US citizens are supposed to be here?
It has always been that We get to decide what foreigners get to come here and which ones get to stay, the fact that we were much more lenient about it in the past doesn't change anything.



That's not due process. If you support due process, then you do not support laws that require us to have papers that we have to show in order to prove we have a right to be here.
It is due process.

Swordsmyth
08-12-2019, 02:59 PM
You say that as if you think that's a lot.
It's FAR too many.

America is becoming a communist/socialist country because they aren't assimilating.

106459
08-12-2019, 03:05 PM
No one's saying we're better than they are. We're saying they're not citizens of this country. They're not supposed to be here.



This is nonsense and has never been the case in the history of the USA. Where did you get the idea that only US citizens are supposed to be here?



Oh, cute. Nice cherry-pick of two points to respond to.

Great word-play on "only US citizens are supposed to be here". Yeah, great. Allow legal residents, tourists, etc. Why don't you tell me where you got the idea that illegal & undocumented immigrants have ever been welcomed anywhere?

-But, yeah, I suppose the colonization of the America's in the 1600's is more up your alley. Whoever can kill more of the other is then welcome, yes?


That's not due process. If you support due process, then you do not support laws that require us to have papers that we have to show in order to prove we have a right to be here.


Ah, yes, the "I amst more Libertarian than thou". Sorry mate, but living in a coherent society means there isn't anarchy. You need papers so that we don't have serial killers hopping from state to state. And, call me crazy, but currently we have government assistance programs handing money to people. It would make sense to check if they're a taxpayer who would be an eligible member for that, wouldn't it? Not in your world, I guess.

Swordsmyth
08-12-2019, 03:09 PM
Oh, cute. Nice cherry-pick of two points to respond to.

Great word-play on "only US citizens are supposed to be here". Yeah, great. Allow legal residents, tourists, etc. Why don't you tell me where you got the idea that illegal & undocumented immigrants have ever been welcomed anywhere?
-But, yeah, I suppose the colonization of the America's in the 1600's is more up your alley. Whoever can kill more of the other is then welcome, yes?



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.


...

Anti Federalist
08-12-2019, 04:43 PM
This is nonsense and has never been the case in the history of the USA. Where did you get the idea that only US citizens are supposed to be here?

Since the Immigration Act of 1924, signed by the most libertarian president the country has had.

Anti Federalist
08-12-2019, 04:44 PM
...

Yes, and that too, I was on my way to get that.

Anti Federalist
08-12-2019, 04:46 PM
-But, yeah, I suppose the colonization of the America's in the 1600's is more up your alley. Whoever can kill more of the other is then welcome, yes?


That's what the enemy has up it's sleeve, wholesale subjugation and genocide of the existing population (that's you and me), through sheer numbers and damnable pity and pathos.

That is the victory they are working toward, in this Fifth Gen warfare attack we are under.

Anti Federalist
08-12-2019, 04:48 PM
You say that as if you think that's a lot.

A million...that is an insane amount.

That is an invasion.

Anti Federalist
08-12-2019, 04:54 PM
Anybody who would make this argument doesn't even begin to grasp the basic principles of this website. You might as join the crowd who thinks robots and self-checkout lanes cost us jobs.

Jobs and crime and disease, while important factors to consider during this invasion, they are secondary to me.

Primary to me is the heart and soul of the nation.

Are we going to remain a a nation founded on the ideals of Western Enlightenment philosophy: limited government, individual liberty, property rights, rule of law and representative republicanism?

Or just become a second world socialist shithole, like a hundred other nations out there, with no common heritage, values, beliefs and every downtown looking like New Kinshasa or New Tegucigalpa?

Brian4Liberty
08-12-2019, 06:40 PM
Lol. You guys do a really great job showing your integrity. Frothing at the mouth before anyone even replies to your post. Just straight up circle-jerking. That's embarrassing.
...

I believe you have identified a problem that is currently taking place between two small groups of people on the forum. Some on both sides are guilty.

It goes something like this:

- “I am going to start a thread, this will really piss off those guys.”
- “Hmm, they didn’t see it yet, let me bump it and say ‘in b4 those other trolls’”.
- “OK, let me quote them from another thread or mention them by name so that they will see it. They’ll blow a fuse, this will be great!”

106459
08-12-2019, 09:48 PM
That's what the enemy has up it's sleeve, wholesale subjugation and genocide of the existing population (that's you and me), through sheer numbers and damnable pity and pathos.

That is the victory they are working toward, in this Fifth Gen warfare attack we are under.

Yeah, it's certainly proving to be a winning gameplan. Just talk about their plights, and somehow we're now directly responsible for making everything better (because they can only ever be a victim, never their own saviors, don't you know?). Moral hazard, Samaritan effect, or any other consequences be damned.

-What I don't understand is that this is supposed to be a limited government forum. But it seems people are willfully oblivious to the fact that people from other nations didn't grow up hearing the same ideals that we did. By whatever margin, 60/40, etc, they lean "left" and vote for 'more government to solve our problems'. That's a problem.

-And, again, it seems like our open borders friends are just totally ok with the Democrat party taking over America. If there are 80 million Americans for something, 80 million Americans against something, 20 million indifferent, then they'll just import millions a year, until they have the numbers they need. ...How exactly is that legitimate?

But, you really don't need to buy into the fifth gen warfare to see the problem with all this immigration, at all. I want to know where these open borders proponents live. Apparently, the 2010 US census said that America was 70% white. I went to a high school that was 27% white. Over 30% hispanic. In fact, my high school was a damn near multi-cultural paradise, apparently.

Except it wasn't. You have blacks hanging out with blacks, hispanics with hispanics, whites with whites. Their own groups and cliques, you know. Turns out that race and shared culture is one way people identify with each other, don't you know. In any case, a real good friend of mine is hispanic; his parents have been in the US over a decade now. I still can't talk to them; because they only speak Spanish. Everyone they do business with, like their mechanic, is just another Spanish speaker. Apparently he has really good prices, I just can't to talk him.

There are literal businesses in my area that only speak Spanish. The menus are in Spanish, the staff only speak Spanish. If I got run over by a car in their parking lots, I literally wouldn't be able to give them my last dying words because they don't speak the fucking language. That's the kind of country we want? Just come the fuck on in, you're a great person, who fucking cares?

You have morons like Wenzel say "man, if only we had even more immigration I could get 10 maids for my house and it would be so awesome." Yeah, until your kids have no friends because you're surrounded by all the Spanish-speaking-only immigrants you just imported. And then they vote themselves a $20/hour minimum wage because it's 10-to-1 at that point, and then they vote to eminent domain your land away because they have a different idea of how big a house should be, and a different idea of how government should function.

-So, yeah, maybe life is a little more complex than "immigration=good".

So, no, unless these people that are calling for more immigration already live in these areas that are 27% white, fuck them! We already have these paradises, go move there, it's great. By your own definition, it must be great, and being somewhere great is in your own best interest, so therefore you must do it, right? Or is it maybe not that black and white? Or are you just full of NIMBY bullshit? Because it's coming to a backyard near you.

Ender
08-13-2019, 09:56 AM
I do try.

Personally, I never have a problem with you, AF. We don't always agree but we can discuss stuff w/o all the insulting BS. I believe others are on here to deliberately create division but I still think YOU are an awesome dude.

PAF
08-13-2019, 10:07 AM
Personally, I never have a problem with you, AF. We don't always agree but we can discuss stuff w/o all the insulting BS. I believe others are on here to deliberately create division but I still think YOU are an awesome dude.

I agree with this ^^ The only issue that I take is calling for killing and murdering on-sight. I try to sum it up as AF is really FED up and just looking to vent - I hope.

nikcers
08-13-2019, 10:12 AM
I agree with this ^^ The only issue that I take is calling for killing and murdering on-sight. I try to sum it up as AF is really FED up and just looking to vent - I hope.

Pew pews are a way of restoring freedom but they should only be the last resort, maybe he sees no hope in a non violent revolution?

PAF
08-13-2019, 10:18 AM
Pew pews are a way of restoring freedom but they should only be the last resort, maybe he sees no hope in a non violent revolution?

The revolution should be against a corrupt government, not pawns ;-)

nikcers
08-13-2019, 10:27 AM
The revolution should be against a corrupt government, not pawns ;-)

If there are pawns in between you blocking the queen how do you checkmate?

PAF
08-13-2019, 10:30 AM
If there are pawns in between you blocking the queen how do you checkmate?

By "working within the system"? LOL

The first goal is to recognize where the problem begins. Which many still have not learned to do.

Feeding the beast to starve the beast is not the way to win against the beast ;-)

nikcers
08-13-2019, 10:34 AM
By "working within the system"? LOL

The first goal is to recognize where the problem begins. Which many still have not learned to do.

Feeding the beast to starve the beast is not the way to win against the beast ;-)

What do you think allowing unlimted amount of food in for the beast to eat does?

PAF
08-13-2019, 10:36 AM
What do you think allowing unlimted amount of food in for the beast to eat does?

The question becomes, who is responsible for that? Me? You? The corporatist-lobbyists?

I know I keep asking this, but, do you follow the money?

Ender
08-13-2019, 10:42 AM
What do you think allowing unlimted amount of food in for the beast to eat does?

Start with the real problem.

Big centralized gov is designed to take over & rule. Hamilton knew this- the CONstitution was a Hamiltonian coup & the Anti-Federalists were right. Loss of freedom has nothing to do with borders & outsiders & everything to do with who's really boss.

And- if you're going to quote The Matrix, I suggest you watch it again- spot on.

nikcers
08-13-2019, 10:43 AM
The question becomes, who is responsible for that? Me? You? The corporatist-lobbyists?

I know I keep asking this, but, do you follow the money?

I guess letting the beast eat too much and kill itself is a solution but my guess is the beast will eat its fill and we will be stuck eating ourselves.

nikcers
08-13-2019, 10:47 AM
Start with the real problem.

Big centralized gov is designed to take over & rule. Hamilton knew this- the CONstitution was a Hamiltonian coup & the Anti-Federalists were right. Loss of freedom has nothing to do with borders & outsiders & everything to do with who's really boss.

And- if you're going to quote The Matrix, I suggest you watch it again- spot on.

The matrix never purposes any solutions because the problem is the people want to be in the matrix because its better than not being in the matrix so the person who is the one always ends up trying to make the matrix more confortable for everyone. There is no leaving the matrix besides death, if making the matrix better is the only option than I will try to make it better, its a lot easier sitting on your hands and saying its the systems fault than trying to make the system better but I prefer to try and fail, its evolution or die.

Ender
08-13-2019, 10:56 AM
The matrix never purposes any solutions because the problem is the people want to be in the matrix because its better than not being in the matrix so the person who is the one always ends up trying to make the matrix more confortable for everyone. There is no leaving the matrix besides death, if making the matrix better is the only option than I will try to make it better, its a lot easier sitting on your hands and saying its the systems fault than trying to make the system better but I prefer to try and fail, its evolution or die.

Uh....Morpheus, Trinity, etc were NOT in The Matrix- they were fighting to teach everyone what it was. Cypher was the only one that went back. And Neo is a Christ-like character- sent to save Zion.

Obviously you don't understand the movie- watch it again.

nikcers
08-13-2019, 11:02 AM
Uh....Morpheus, Trinity, etc were NOT in The Matrix- they were fighting to teach everyone what it was. Cypher was the only one that went back. And Neo is a Christ-like character- sent to save Zion.

Obviously you don't understand the movie- watch it again.

I am talking about the real world here there is no leaving the matrix. Even people who think they are not in the matrix are just in a different matrix. Cypher is the reaction most people who have grown to love the matrix would choose and would kill people to stay in it. Most people love their dream they are in and hate themselves.