Libertarian Party Endorses Illegal Immigration

[tfurrh]

"as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." AZ vs US; 2012

[LibertyEagle]

The founders definitely did not have in mind any restrictions of immigration enforced by the federal government. Nor did they believe that anything in the Constitution could be taken as a delegation of such a power to the federal government. This is easily proven from their own quotes and the Constitution itself.

Like this quote?

In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/fo...tion-skeptics/

[LibertyEagle]

The founders definitely did not have in mind any restrictions of immigration enforced by the federal government. Nor did they believe that anything in the Constitution could be taken as a delegation of such a power to the federal government. This is easily proven from their own quotes and the Constitution itself.

Really?

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; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec4.html

[Superfluous Man]

"as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." AZ vs US; 2012

Thank you.

Great quote.

[Superfluous Man]

Like this quote?



http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/fo...tion-skeptics/

I see absolutely nothing in any of those quotes that contradicts exactly what I said. Do you?

Notably, you didn't provide any information about the primary sources, you just copied and pasted paragraphs from that Woods article where his words are mixed with the founders he quotes. And Woods himself never once claims in that article that any of the founders he mentions believed the federal government had any constitutional authority to limit immigration.

If you actually check the source of the Jefferson quotes, you will see that, not only does he never once endorse the empowerment of the federal government to limit immigration, but in fact he explicitly disavows that position, saying that in spite of his skepticism of the benefit of mass immigration, it remains the case that "If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship." This line comes right after the quotes you cherry-picked from that Woods article.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp

So this is actually a great illustration of precisely what I said.

The founders (Jefferson at least) were so committed to liberty, including open borders, that they stood by that conviction even when they foresaw that it would lead to undesirable results.

They (at least Jefferson) were not people who looked out at the world and every time they saw something they didn't like, spoke sentences that started with the words, "There ought to be a law..."

[Superfluous Man]

Really?


https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec4.html

Of course, I'm sure you're well aware that the founders would not have expanded the meaning of the word "invasion" to include the immigration of peaceful civilians, like you are doing.

You must either adopt a living document view of the Constitution, or else admit that it does not empower the federal government to limit immigration. Because interpreted according to its original meaning, it clearly does not.

[Superfluous Man]

On the other hand, if anyone really wants to take an honest look at what the founders thought about federal power to restrict immigration, and what the Constitution actually says about it, when interpreted according to originalist principles, you will find a treasure trove of evidence pertaining to those questions in these articles by Ilya Somin.

Unlike that Woods article, these articles actually address the specific question of how the founders understood the Constitution, and not just whether their personal opinions about immigration were to prefer more of it or not.

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery...113025&EXT=pdf

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2018/09...er-immigration

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2c57ee2f1af4

[Ender]

Treaties were broken and of course I don't agree with that. Lands were conquered and lands were purchased. That is all history. You seem to believe that the present day Americans, which includes Indians, should feel guilty and because of that guilt, allow our country to be taken over by invaders.

Why is that?

Nope- I don't think we should feel guilty- I think we should WAKE UP take care of the real problems before us instead of fighting over things that are designed to take our eye off the mark.

[Ender]

That's my point.

Hostile invading immigrants decimated the native population, enslaved, abused and carried out what could only be described as a pogram of ethnic cleansing, all the while promising peace and prosperity through "free trade" and treaties, leaving these once mighty and proud people second class citizens and wards of the state in a society that hated them, because the native population would not, could not, effectively organize, erect barriers to the invasion and protect themselves.

The current invaders have made it clear that is their plan for me and my family.

Maybe you could call it karma then, and I should just retreat to Europe.

But I can say this, after extensive research, my family never used African chattel slaves, and the native lands they settled on in the 17th century here, were paid for, fair and square.

I agree- my only issue with this post is that I don't believe "current invaders" are the prob. I think they are being used to frighten and divide us so that we aren't looking at the Big Picture.

[Ender]

I'd rather read a zippyjuan thread than a swordsmyth thread.

Yerp!

[brushfire]

Oh, that libertarian party... They're a hoot.

[Swordsmyth]

The founders definitely did not have in mind any restrictions of immigration enforced by the federal government. Nor did they believe that anything in the Constitution could be taken as a delegation of such a power to the federal government. This is easily proven from their own quotes and the Constitution itself.

Yes they did intend for the federal government to restrict immigration:


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

[Swordsmyth]

In Alexandria Bay New York, there are kiosks at the border so that anyone who crosses the river can self-declare. They're not manned 24/7. Besides major points of entry, most places along the northern border are like that. Seems satisfactory where there are not perverse incentives.

Canada has a standard of living very close to ours, a small population relative to its size and no land borders with impoverished overcrowded countries.

[Swordsmyth]

I'd rather read a zippyjuan thread than a swordsmyth thread.

Be my guest, put me on ignore, I'd rather not have you in my threads.

[Swordsmyth]

Yerp!

Be my guest, put me on ignore, I'd rather not have you in my threads.

[Swordsmyth]

I agree- my only issue with this post is that I don't believe "current invaders" are the prob. I think they are being used to frighten and divide us so that we aren't looking at the Big Picture.

[Superfluous Man]

Yes they did intend for the federal government to restrict immigration:


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

I'll need to look more into this before I can speak authoritatively about it.

But right off the bat I notice that it does not stipulate any specific means of national authorities granting permission to cross national borders. It certainly isn't saying that the Law of Nations required some kind of paperwork like a passport for crossing all national borders. That would be totally anachronistic. It may be that some nations reserved the rights to restrict immigration into them. But the US did not, at least not at the federal level. As far as the federal government was concerned, according to its constitutional authority, there was a general permission for anyone to cross the national borders of the United States. No special grant of permission for individuals on a person-by-person basis was needed at the time of the nation's founding. Whenever any common person traveled across the national borders of the USA at that time, they did so with the permission of the national authorities, and needed no passport or any similar special additional permission to do so.

[Swordsmyth]

Originally Posted by tfurrh

"as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." AZ vs US; 2012

Thank you.

Great quote.

A biased liberal ruling.

[Stratovarious]

Um.... You don't want them even if they're invited. You have no idea what natural rights are, do you?

Thanks for the neg idiot, you should join Hillary , that's the kind of thing she does
when her argument is week.....:facepalm:
When you can't hold a conversation, just neg em' ,,,,,,,,,

[Swordsmyth]

I'll need to look more into this before I can speak authoritatively about it.

But right off the bat I notice that it does not stipulate any specific means of national authorities granting permission to cross national borders. It certainly isn't saying that the Law of Nations required some kind of paperwork like a passport for crossing all national borders. That would be totally anachronistic. It may be that some nations reserved the rights to restrict immigration into them. But the US did not, at least not at the federal level. As far as the federal government was concerned, according to its constitutional authority, there was a general permission for anyone to cross the national borders of the United States. No special grant of permission for individuals on a person-by-person basis was needed at the time of the nation's founding. Whenever any common person traveled across the national borders of the USA at that time, they did so with the permission of the national authorities, and needed no passport or any similar special additional permission to do so.

Congress was given power to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations", that means they can define entry without permission and proper documentation as a crime and specify a punishment.

[Swordsmyth]

Really?


https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec4.html

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


You can find more in this thread:

Article 1 Section 9

[Superfluous Man]

A biased liberal ruling.

Perhaps. I'm not familiar with it. And I don't care much for the felt need some have to classify things as liberal or conservative. But as a statement of fact about the law, that quote is accurate.

[Swordsmyth]

Like this quote?



http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/fo...tion-skeptics/

"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

[Swordsmyth]

Perhaps. I'm not familiar with it. And I don't care much for the felt need some have to classify things as liberal or conservative. But as a statement of fact about the law, that quote is accurate.

No it isn't, remaining is not a new crime but it is a continuation of the original crime.

[Superfluous Man]

No it isn't, remaining is not a new crime but it is a continuation of the original crime.

US law does not say that.

[Superfluous Man]

"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

To what level of "society" is he referring, and what "territory"? That makes all the difference.

I would not be surprised if he thought that a state could exclude noncitizens. But I would be surprised if he said the federal government could through a sweeping law covering all the states.

[Swordsmyth]

To what level of "society" is he referring, and what "territory"? That makes all the difference.

I would not be surprised if he thought that a state could exclude noncitizens. But I would be surprised if he said the federal government could through a sweeping law covering all the states.

He was talking about the union excluding the citizens of states that were threatening to secede and thus become foreigners.

[Swordsmyth]

US law does not say that.

Yes it does.
It is just like a trespasser is trespassing the entire time he is on my property not just as he crosses on to it.

[Anti Federalist]

I agree- my only issue with this post is that I don't believe "current invaders" are the prob. I think they are being used to frighten and divide us so that we aren't looking at the Big Picture.

That is sadly where our point of disagreement is.

I do. I see it as a clear and present danger, and hopefully present that fact in a calm and rational way, and not in a way indicating irrational fear.

The UniParty Marxist Super Majority government in California, directly caused by invading migrant hordes displacing and overwhelming native voters, is evidence of this.

Texas, Arizona and Florida are next.

Once that happens, you can dismiss even lip service to limited government representation at the federal level for 100 years or more.

[CaptUSA]

Thanks for the neg idiot, you should join Hillary , that's the kind of thing she does
when her argument is week.....:facepalm:
When you can't hold a conversation, just neg em' ,,,,,,,,,

Better check again. I didn’t neg you. I reserve that for trolls. Not just general ignoramuses.