Leave it to the states.Originally Posted by timosman
Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Leave it to the states.
There is no spoon.
Once again you have ignored how America has been made into a taxpayer financed maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who have invaded our borders.
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.
Abolishing the welfare state IS directly looking at the immigration problem.
Are you suggesting when foreigners who are about to give birth and have entered our country illegally, that we should refuse to give them any medical attention? And how about those who flood our emergency rooms, should we also refuse to give them medical attention?
I think it is wise and prudent for every country to determine who and who shall not be permitted to enter their country based upon various factors which will affect their country's general welfare, just as one does when allowing people to enter their private homes.
Let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790
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
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.
Absolutely.
American citizens who cannot pay on the spot should be refused service too.
You are not entitled to $#@!, especially another mans labor.
WARNING: Bat$#@! crazy talk.
First of all quit screaming- no one wants to read your posts when you do.
2nd of all, every state can determine how they want to handle immigrants as well as every company/individual. Catholic Hospitals are among the best in the nation and they certainly give service to those who need it.
And, ironically, those horrible "convicts" poring out of British jails were probably the Irish, who were treated as slaves in Britain and America because they were dirty Catholics and were not considered "white".
The highest number of immigrants are not from Mexico any more and frankly I do not know better workers than these. They used to come freely here, work and then go home until the US made this a "crime" so .gov could control farms/land/business/you-name-it.
The answer is ALWAYS less fed government, more local involvement in law, and FREEDOM FOR ALL.
There is no spoon.
Whenever a walnut* uses the pronoun "we", I reach for my checkbook. By "we", you mean "taxpayers". By using the appropriate term, the answer is obvious, as there should be no taxpayers.
Private individuals and organizations are free to fund whatever they wish.
* I just coined this. Anyone is free to use it, providing they acknowledge my cleverness.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
I have no idea what you mean by walnut. With reference to the distinction "taxpayers", I agree with you completely! Government force ought not be used to confiscate the property one individual has in their labor with the intention to transfer that property to another for their personal use and enjoyment. To do so is to engage in tax tyranny!
"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny." ___ See: Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792
JWK
Why do we lock up burglars and armed robbers who steal other people’s property which is then used for the thieves’ personal needs and enjoyment when our federal government likewise confiscates the property working people have in their labor which is then transferred by our federal government to a privileged class to be used for their personal needs and enjoyment?
walnut
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
No. I won’t change the style in which I post. And with regard to your notion that every state can determine how they want to handle immigrants, we are not talking about states handling immigrants. We are talking about foreigners entering the geographical borders of the United States unchecked and unrestrained, and as such, they can and are having an effect on the entire country.
Our federal Constitution is silent with regard to our federal government having power to regulate immigration into the United States. Having said that, I am of the opinion that such power, with the intention to promote the general welfare of our country, is a reasonable power to be placed in Congress’ hands in order to promote the general welfare of the United States, just as Congress was granted the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. And what was the primary reason for grant this power to Congress?
Chief Justice Taney summarized the very object of allowing the federal government to set the rules for naturalization as follows: “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others and upon the General Government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” Passenger Cases (1849). And Justice Taney’s statement is in full harmony with the intentions of our forefathers expressed during our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790!
REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148
In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152
And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157
Finally, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790
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.
So tell me, are you really suggesting the Congress of the United States ought not have a power to regulate immigration into the geographical borders of the United States for the same reason it was given a power to set a uniform rule of naturalization?
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.
Last edited by johnwk; 04-15-2017 at 11:25 AM.
So, tell ME, are you really suggesting that our runaway Empire should keep enacting more laws, until all individual freedom is completely gone?
There is no spoon.
Americans are tired of TAX.
Humans care about helping children live and grow.
Govt should have no money to give.
and Damn little to run on.
and any sick Phuck that would deny a mother giving birth any comforts available is not worthy of the life they have..
Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
Ron Paul 2004
Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
It's all about Freedom
what a bunch of baloney
I already expressed my opinion on the subject being discussed. I wrote: ”Our federal Constitution is silent with regard to our federal government having power to regulate immigration into the United States. Having said that, I am of the opinion that such power, with the intention to promote the general welfare of our country, is a reasonable power to be placed in Congress’ hands in order to promote the general welfare of the United States, just as Congress was granted the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”
Now, my question to you was: ”. . . are you really suggesting the Congress of the United States ought not have a power to regulate immigration into the geographical borders of the United States for the same reason it was given a power to set a uniform rule of naturalization?”
JWK
There was a time not too long ago in New York when able-bodied people were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now we are infested with ticks and fleas who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs and Lotto tickets.
From the Tenth Amendment Center
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017...d-immigration/In response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, Thomas Jefferson drafted the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions were adopted by the Kentucky legislature in November 1798. Although they primarily addressed the Sedition Act (a law that essentially criminalized criticism of the president or Congress), Jefferson used two sections of the resolutions to address the issue of the Alien Acts.
Jefferson emphatically asserted that while the federal government has the constitutional authority to establish the rules of naturalization – granting of citizenship status – regulating immigration and making rules relating to “Alien friends” was left to the states.
“Alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that ‘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,’ the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled ‘An Act concerning aliens,’ which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.”
Jefferson also reasoned that a clause in the Constitution intended to prevent Congress from interfering with slavery for 20 years inferred the federal government was also prohibited from more generally regulating the people who states allowed within their borders.
“In addition to the general principle, as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision, inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution, has declared that ‘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 1808’ that this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends, described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens: that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory: that to remove them when migrated, is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void.”
Although the constitutional provision referenced in the resolution was specifically aimed at preventing the federal government from interfering with the slave trade until 1808, (keep in mind, regulation of slavery would ultimately fall under the commerce clause) Jefferson understood was rooted in a more general principle leaving states broad authority to determine whom they allowed in and whom they kept out – not only slaves – but more generally foreign alien friends.
Jefferson did not envision a uniform immigration policy. One could argue that America needs a uniform policy, because it simply can’t work with 50 states making 50 different sets of rules. But that didn’t change Jefferson’s constitutional calculus.
As with all issues, Jefferson asserted federal power does not exist where none was delegated.
In his view, the states clearly delegated the federal government authority over citizenship. The federal government was also delegated the power to exercise some power over immigration through the commerce clause and the power to “define and punish … Offenses against the Law of Nations” found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution.
But the states were expected to have a seat at the table as well.
There is no spoon.
Well, I see you have once again obfuscated and refuse to engage in a dialogue.
My question to you, which has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment, was: ”. . . are you really suggesting the Congress of the United States ought not have a power to regulate immigration into the geographical borders of the United States for the same reason it was given a power to set a uniform rule of naturalization?”
JWK
They are not “liberals”. They are conniving parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create
NO.
Why should I trust anything to a congress that will not maintain that a president cannot declare war w/o their consent?
There is no spoon.
I share your concerns about not trusting Congress. Having said that I am still of the opinion that a power to regulate immigration into the United States, with the intention to promote the general welfare of our country, is a reasonable power to be placed in Congress’ hands in order to promote the general welfare of the United States, just as Congress was granted the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
NO.
Why should I trust anything to a congress that will not maintain that a president cannot declare war w/o their consent?
To not regulate who may enter the geographical borders of the United States makes about as much sense as not restricting who may, or may not, enter one’s private home. But you are correct about our untrustworthy Congress, which the people of the United States seem to elect and re-elect year after year in spite of Congress’ repeated actions which violate both the text and legislative intent of our written Constitution.
JWK
80% of green energy money taxed away from hard working American Citizens WENT TO our Washington Establishment’s donors!
So, again, leave it to the states. Give them back the freedom they had until the "Civil" War took it all away.
There is no spoon.
I disagree.
We are talking about foreigners entering the geographical borders of the United States and as such, they can and are having an effect on the entire country.
I am still of the opinion that a power to regulate immigration into the United States, with the intention to promote the general welfare of our country, is a reasonable power to be placed in Congress’ hands in order to promote the general welfare of the United States, and for the same reason Congress was granted the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
Chief Justice Taney summarized the very object of allowing the federal government to set the rules for naturalization as follows: “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others and upon the General Government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” Passenger Cases (1849). And Justice Taney’s statement is in full harmony with the intentions of our forefathers expressed during our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790!
REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148
In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152
And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157
Finally, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790
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
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us