An army of illegal aliens is marching on America

[TheCount]

Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

Called it.

[Swordsmyth]

Called it.

The North and south never should have been joined in a union an alliance would have done.
As granny Clampett reminds us: The war between the states is when the North invaded America.

[timosman]

The North and south never should have been joined in a union an alliance would have done.
As granny Clampett reminds us: The war between the states is when the North invaded America.

The Yankees?

[tod evans]

The Yankees?

Damn Yankees!

Thank you.

[Swordsmyth]

The Yankees?

The Yankees were not liberty oriented.

[AuH20]

How about 'NO'?

[Occam's Banana]

The Yankees were not liberty oriented.

Neither were human chattel slavers ...

[Raginfridus]

Neither were human chattel slavers ...

Those weren't humans, they were property.

[Swordsmyth]

Neither were human chattel slavers ...

Slavery was wrong but the south knew what freedom was even if they didn't give it to everyone.
They would have gotten rid of slavery sooner if the radical abolitionists hadn't driven them into a state of paranoia.
It was the south that gave us the Bill of Rights.

[TheCount]

Those weren't humans, they were property.

Of course they were property!

Only those who are invited have the same rights as Americans

As non-invited non-"cultural Americans," those slaves were subhuman and

less welcome or justified in their presence than dogs, or stones, or trees

With only

some human rights

[Swordsmyth]

Of course they were property!


As non-invited non-"cultural Americans," those slaves were subhuman and

With only

Totally dishonest.

The slaves were given an invitation they couldn't refuse.
I have never defended slavery or called them property.

[Occam's Banana]

Slavery was wrong but the south knew what freedom was even if they didn't give it to everyone.

So they knew better, but they did it anyway. That just makes them even more despicable.

They would have gotten rid of slavery sooner if the radical abolitionists hadn't driven them into a state of paranoia.

The radical abolitionists were a tiny minority, essentially powerless in all but force of rhetoric.

Though slavery probably would have died eventually, there is no reason to imagine it would have done so any sooner than it actually did.

Prior to actual abolition, it was simply not in the slavers' material interests that it do so (despite any vaunted and hyprocritical appreciation of "what freedom was").

Hence, their paranoia regarding any notion of abolition ("radical" or otherwise).

It was the south that gave us the Bill of Rights.

Which only further compounds their hypocrisy.

Such blatantly profound contradictions cannot be maintained without severe or even fatal damage to the body politic.

This is one of the chief reasons why the Bill of Rights is a dead letter today - the principles underlying it were never really taken seriously to begin with.

(And the better and wiser men among them - like Jefferson - knew it: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just [and] that his justice cannot sleep forever.")

[Swordsmyth]

So they knew better, but they did it anyway. That just makes them even more despicable.



The radical abolitionists were a tiny minority, essentially powerless in all but force of rhetoric.

Though slavery probably would have died eventually, there is no reason to imagine it would have done so any sooner than it actually did.

Prior to actual abolition, it was simply not in the slavers' material interests that it do so (despite any vaunted and hyprocritical appreciation of "what freedom was").

Hence, their paranoia regarding any notion of abolition ("radical" or otherwise).



Which only further compounds their hypocrisy.

Such blatantly profound contradictions cannot be maintainded without severe or even fatal damage to the body politic.

This is one of the chief reasons why the Bill of Rights is a dead letter today - the principles underlying it were never really taken seriously to begin with.

(And the better and wiser men among them - like Jefferson - knew it: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just [and] that his justice cannot sleep forever.")

I do not defend slavery, in my opinion GOD allowed the south to lose the civil war as punishment for their hypocrisy.
However my point still stands, Yankees were not a liberty oriented society, the south could have and eventually would have ended slavery and their people would have been free, the Yankees "freed" the slaves and enslaved everyone.

[CCTelander]

Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

Called it.

[Swordsmyth]

Allowing states to remain separate nations in an alliance with control of their borders and immigration has nothing to do with an internal police state.

[Occam's Banana]

However my point still stands, Yankees were not a liberty oriented society [...]

I agree with this.

[...] the south could have and eventually would have ended slavery and their people would have been free [...]

It is the bolded of which I am deeply skeptical.

These were people who allowed their immediate material self-interests to supercede their awareness of and alleged dedication to the principles of human liberty.

And they did so in one of the most profoundly anti-human and anti-liberty ways possible: the maintenance and defense (on both physical and philosophical bases) of abject human chattel slavery.

This is not a legacy upon which it can reasonably be expected that liberty will advance and flourish.

[Swordsmyth]

I agree with this.



It is the bolded of which I am deeply skeptical.

These were people who allowed their immediate material self-interests to supercede their awareness of and alleged dedication to the principles of human liberty.

And they did so in one of the most profoundly anti-human and anti-liberty ways possible: the maintenance and defense (on both physical and philosophical bases) of abject human chattel slavery.

This is not a legacy upon which it can reasonably be expected that liberty will advance and flourish.

Almost every society on Earth practiced slavery, the past doesn't have to control the future, if you know what is right but have not yet conformed to it you are closer than someone who doesn't know what is right, if you never conform to it you will be more guilty than the one who is ignorant but you have the chance to, those who haven't even figured out what is right will never conform to it until they catch up to you.

[Raginfridus]

Not all the Abolitionists were radicals. Nehemiah Adams, who kept a diary of his sick leave visiting Atlanta, saw first hand the rhetoric of his fellows was out of line. However, he didn't change his mind over natural rights. Maybe 1860 was too late to fight the myths of the arch-warmongers in Massachusetts, but his book was published that year.

[TheCount]

Not all the Abolitionists were radicals. Nehemiah Adams, who kept a diary of his sick leave visiting Atlanta, saw first hand the rhetoric of his fellows was out of line. However, he didn't change his mind over natural rights. Maybe 1860 was too late to fight the myths of the arch-warmongers in Massachusetts, but his book was published that year.

Evidently, the concept that humans should have human rights is still radical a century and a half later.

[Swordsmyth]

Evidently, the concept that humans should have human rights is still a century and a half later.

They have human rights but immigration isn't one.

[TheCount]

They have human rights but immigration isn't one.

Uh-huh

No, here they are invaders and trespassers, that leaves them with some human rights

[Swordsmyth]

Uh-huh

No, here they are invaders and trespassers, that leaves them with some human rights (such as the right to not be tortured) but it makes them less welcome or justified in their presence than dogs, or stones, or trees.

Only those who are invited have the same rights as Americans and even they don't have all the same rights. (they can't vote and they can be expelled for example)

Yes they have some rights which are human rights, the basic ones all humans have no matter where they go but they don't have all the rights Americans have in America.

[TheCount]

the basic ones all humans have no matter where they go

Those are called human rights. As in, humans are entitled to them because they are human and for no other reason.

This is why, when you said that only Americans are entitled to all human rights, @r3volution 3.0 said that you view others as sub-human. You said that group membership was required in order to have human rights.

[Swordsmyth]

This is why, when you said that only Americans are entitled to all human rights, @r3volution 3.0 said that you view others as sub-human. You said that group membership was required in order to have human rights.

I didn't say either of those things.

[Ender]

Allowing states to remain separate nations in an alliance with control of their borders and immigration has nothing to do with an internal police state.

I think you'd better read this:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...30#post6614430

[Swordsmyth]

I think you'd better read this:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...30#post6614430

It is a separate question.

[Ender]

It is a separate question.

No. It is not.

[johnwk]

Keep in mind our Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The fact is, our federal government is specifically charged with power:


”To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15



As Commander in Chief, President Trump can lawfully exercise established emergency powers over our military and order them into action if, in his judgement, the common defense and general welfare of the United States are in jeopardy. In doing so, he must inform Congress within 48 hours of taking such action, and the troops cannot be committed for more than 60 days, unless Congress approves a longer time period. The President can also exercise an additional 30 days to re-deploy the troops.

It’s time for President Trump to exercise his powers as Commander in Chief, and keep these traffickers, drug mules, gang members, and illegal entrants in custody until they can be deported to where they came from.


Why do you have such a problem with our President exercising lawful powers to protect the good people of the United States from traffickers, drug mules, and gang members who invade our borders, and likewise protect us from illegal entrants?



JWK


There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from poverty stricken countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.

The natl guard is a militia now?

JWK



”The deception of the appeal for a "convention of states" lies first of all in the name of the project. If you open your pocket Constitution, it's easy to see that the convention authorized by Article V would not be a "convention of states" in any sense of the word.” __ Phyllis Schlafly, 5/24/2016

[PierzStyx]

That isn't what I support, you don't get to pretend that anyone who disagrees with you is a NAZI and still keep your credibility.

It is the natural result of anarchy, the power hungry fill the vacuum and the people follow them because they reduce the chaos or out of a hope to share in the spoils, the only alternative is to create a minarchy to keep them at bay.

I don't have to pretend you're a Fascist. Its right there in black and white.

And if you don't think this:

. Earth is a prison and you're going to make everyone more free by making the USA even MORE of prison, by surrounding it with a literal wall, armed military guards who will shoot you for crossing the wall, and expanding the power of the government to cage millions of nonviolent people, seize the property, and kill them if necessary? That is what you define as "freedom." That is literally insane.

isn't what you support you're either a moron who doesn't understand how a militarized borders and immigration restriction works or you're a delusional fool with some utopian fantasy ignoring how things work in the real world.

Currently I'm thinking delusional fool. Humans started experimenting with statism 5,000 years ago and the end result of embracing the State has been tyranny, oppression, and destruction. And you're answer is to continue embracing and loving the State, imaging that somehow, for some magical reason, this time it will be different. Delusion.

You keep talking about anarchy being the problem, but it is quite clear that the problems only began when people embraced the State. And those problems will only continue as people continue to embrace the State. You talk about Mexicans being a threat. Anyone who votes is a threat to the peace, liberty, and prosperity of society. They're the ones choosing violent warlords to enact the edicts of a violent government onto the people, depriving them of their life, liberty, and property.

[PierzStyx]

The Yankees were not liberty oriented.

Neither was the South. No nation who holds over 4 million people in absolute slavery, depriving them of life, liberty, or property in every way can claim to be "liberty oriented." Nor can it claim to even believe in liberty when it does such.