‘Foreign Invasion’ – Will US Military Confront Migrants At Border?

[Swordsmyth]

The only person disrespecting "our laws" and dedicated to "violating our laws" are people who want the Federal government to regulate the border.

The supreme law of the land is not the US legal code. The supreme law of the land is the US Constitution, and it overrides any other inferior law. This is laid out in the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” This means that laws passed by the US government that are constitutionally valid are the supreme laws of the land and these laws override even state laws, but this is true only for laws that are based on powers given to the federal government.

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution lays severe limits to the powers of the government when it says that any power not given to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or people. Here is the text of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution: “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.”

This means the federal government has no authority in any area it isn't given authority in the Constitution. Anytime the federal government attempts to do so it is exceeding its legal limitations and legal powers and is committing an illegal act by exceeding the restrictions laid upon it in the supreme law of the land. It is acting in ways not simply unauthorized by the Constitution but in ways the federal government is actively forbidden to act in. One of these ways is immigration.

The US Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate immigration in any manner. Therefore any attempt by the federal government to do so is illegal. And anyone encouraging the government to do so is promoting it to act in an illegal manner.

This is further confirmed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 wherein they state:

“Resolved-That 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 and Madison held that the Constitution had no authority over immigrants and that laws made by the federal government aimed at them are totally illegal and of no force. Each state makes its own immigration policy. And anyone arguing otherwise is arguing for the government to violate the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution.

Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts

Here's an article that argues that the federal government's power over immigration is based on the Law of Nations Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:

https://i2i.org/where-congresss-powe...on-comes-from/ https://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm

The meaning of "Offenses against the Law of Nations"

Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations". It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art "law of nations", and not confuse it with "international law". They are not the same thing. The phrase "law of nations" is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the "laws", that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of "international law". The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law.

Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone's Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them:

(1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

(2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.

(3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.

(4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.

(5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.

(6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.

(7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one's territory or are found on the high seas established with all nations in 1788,

(8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.



Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government

<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

[Swordsmyth]

I'd say you're 95% right. He isn't against open borders. From what I can tell he thinks we should focus on getting rid of the welfare state. And doing so it would eliminate the possibility of anyone coming here to take advantage of it. And he openly supports people being able to move here to live how they choose. IN his book "Swords Into Plowshares" he says that allowing goods and services, including people, to move freely across border would enhance world trade and peace.

Totally free immigration! I`ve never taken that position...Well, you work on both. The most important is the welfare state, but you can still beef up your borders and get rid of some incentives for illegals....Ron Paul


More at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty


Well, I start off with saying that it`s a big problem. I don`t like to get involved with the Federal Government very much, but I do think it is a federal responsibility to protect our borders....And that`s why I don`t think our border guards should be sent to Iraq, like we`ve done. I think we need more border guards. But to have the money and the personnel, we have to bring our troops home from Iraq. Ron Paul


More at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty

[Swordsmyth]

This is further confirmed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 wherein they state:

“Resolved-That 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 and Madison held that the Constitution had no authority over immigrants and that laws made by the federal government aimed at them are totally illegal and of no force. Each state makes its own immigration policy. And anyone arguing otherwise is arguing for the government to violate the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution.

The law in question wasn't an immigration law, it allowed the president to expel particular aliens who had already entered the US.

"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

In a 1790 House of Representatives debate on naturalization, Madison declared:
When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses; it is no doubt very desirable, that we should hold out as many inducements as possible, for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours.
But, why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, ’tis to encrease the wealth and strength of the community, and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community, are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and an intention that they mean to reside in the United States: Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying, at the same time, all the advantages of citizens and aliens.
I should be exceeding sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame, that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but who, in fact, is a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world...or-citizenship

But some of the States were not only anxious for a Constitutional provision against the introduction of slaves. They had scruples against admitting the term "slaves" into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase, "migration or importation of persons;" the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country. It is possible tho' not recollected, that some might have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as malefactors.

James Madison Letter to Robert Walsh, November 27, 1819 (emphasis added)

"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular."

--Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

[unknown]

Has Dr. Paul addressed whether this is a violation of posse comitatus?

[unknown]

In this video, Dr. Paul talks about increasing the number of customs/border patrol agents:

[unknown]

Oh it will exist. Some people need the "RP" part to have some sense of legitimacy even as they drift further and further away from the principles of the man bearing the name.

Are you referring to the pro-Trump jerkoffs?

Didnt these f*cks just go on a bipartisan spending spree?

[unknown]

You can't expect rationality or consistency from people who are reacting from strong, negative emotional states. Unfortunately, this place has been whipped up into a big frothy emotionally driven frenzy by a handful of extremely prolific posters who have been relentlessly spamming RPFs with Big Lie propaganda and other one-sided, divisive, hateful bull$#@! for well over two years now.

To be sure there are a few who still remain open to at least considering other points of view when presented by people they respect and consider to be reasonable, but there just aren't enough of those level-headed individuals left to make any real progress cutting through the constant drone of partisan hackery and various and sundry other bull$#@! propaganda. They've mostly been chased off by the bad actors mentioned above. If this situation doesn't change, I seriously doubt that RPF will even exist in another 5 years.

Bunch of Judas Goat shills.

The idea is to disrupt and disband the forums. To stop the ideals of freedom and liberty.

$#@! them.

[Ender]

Has Dr. Paul addressed whether this is a violation of posse comitatus?

Not sure if he mentioned it in the vid but he has stated his views many times. Here's part of a speech to the House from 2007:

Some of the least-noticed and least-discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted the President in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional Republic.

Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called "other conditions.” The President can call up the National Guard without congressional approval or the Governors’ approval, and even send these State Guard troops into other States.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/05/...riotism-smear/

[unknown]

Not sure if he mentioned it in the vid but he has stated his views many times. Here's part of a speech to the House from 2007:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/05/...riotism-smear/

Beautiful, as usual.

Looks like I'll need to update the posse comitatus wiki entry.

[osan]

Let's hope so.

I have the solution: Flamethrowers

I guaRONtee that after the first couple hundred of those beggars are lit up like Christmas trees for the rest to see and hear, they will get sense real fast, what with all the screaming and writhing and the stench of roasting flesh and all.

Few things bring a man to religion as quickly as the immediate threat of petroleum-soaked immolation at the hands of eager soldiers happy in their work, having witnessed his buddies incinerated alive in said manner.

Just ask the Japanese.

... I think...

[jmdrake]

Are you referring to the pro-Trump jerkoffs?

Didnt these f*cks just go on a bipartisan spending spree?

Yes and yes.

Bunch of Judas Goat shills.

The idea is to disrupt and disband the forums. To stop the ideals of freedom and liberty.

$#@! them.

It's funny that the same people who gleefully attack the positions of Ron Paul turn around and say those who don't agree with their Trump humping nihilism are the ones going against the sites mission.

[jmdrake]

In this video, Dr. Paul talks about increasing the number of customs/border patrol agents:

What? You mean there is a common sense, non hysterical solution to all of this? You mean we can just hire more civilian border guards and not entice the ones we already have to go overseas and guard borders in Iraq? We don't need flamethrowers and bayonets? Really?

[dannno]

Migrants from caravan begin climbing border fence in Tijuana

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...nce-in-tijuana

[Jamesiv1]

Are you referring to the pro-Trump jerkoffs?

Didnt these f*cks just go on a bipartisan spending spree?

You might want to tone down your rhetoric, pal. In case somebody decides to open up a can of whoop-ass.

[Ender]

It's funny that the same people who gleefully attack the positions of Ron Paul turn around and say those who don't agree with their Trump humping nihilism are the ones going against the sites mission.

Yep- seems to be a hatred-point-the-finger-divide-and-conquer-continuum going on.

[AZJoe]

[Danke]

For those that don't understand what they are yelling in delight: "I can see Zippyjuan's apartment from up here!"

[osan]

That's because we're free thinkers and not cult members.

Last I checked, not even Dr. Paul walks on water. We all make errors. Well, except for perfect me, of course.

[unknown]

You might want to tone down your rhetoric, pal. In case somebody decides to open up a can of whoop-ass.

[Swordsmyth]

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

The invasion is now.

...

[Origanalist]

The really sad thing about all this division is Trump isn't going to to $#@! about immigration. All the hopes and dreams of the turdsmythes will be dashed on the shores of reality. The wall isn't going to stop a stinking thing, just make it worse, and RPF's is not smart enough to see it.

[Ender]

The really sad thing about all this division is Trump isn't going to to $#@! about immigration. All the hopes and dreams of the turdsmythes will be dashed on the shores of reality. The wall isn't going to stop a stinking thing, just make it worse, and RPF's is not smart enough to see it.

I'd +rep you if I could.