Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 89

Thread: Name Your Favorite 10 Open Border Countries , Should America Be Open Bordered' ?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Progressivism had already taken hold before Coolidge. But before that the USA had open borders.
    Ummm...no.

    Naturalization Act of 1790

    The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free White persons of good character. It thus excluded Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and later Asians, although free blacks were allowed citizenship at the state level in certain states. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, stating that such children "shall be considered as natural born citizens," the only US statute ever to use the term. It specified that the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."


    Coolidge signed the sweeping and enforced Immigration Act of 1924.

    The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the Asian Exclusion Act and National Origins Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that prevented immigration from Asia, set quotas on the number of immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere, and provided funding and an enforcement mechanism to carry out the longstanding ban on other immigrants.

    The 1924 act supplanted earlier acts to effectively ban all immigration from Asia[1][2] and set a total immigration quota of 165,000 for countries outside the Western Hemisphere, an 80% reduction from the pre-World War I average.[1] Quotas for specific countries were based on 2% of the U.S. population from that country as recorded in 1890.[2] As a result, populations poorly represented in 1890 were prevented from immigrating in proportionate numbers—especially affecting Italians, Jews, Greeks, Poles, and Slavs. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian, the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity."

    Congressional opposition was minimal.

    A key element of the act was its provisions for enforcement. The act provided funding and legal instructions to courts of deportation for immigrants whose national quotas were exceeded. The act was revised in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952[2] and replaced by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.


    Teddy Kennedy spearheaded the First Wave of Cultural Marxists in the 1960s, by pushing through the 1965 Immigration Act.

    They lied to American people and said it would not "change the face of the nation" when they knew all along that was exactly what it was going to do.

    The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act,[1] changed the way quotas were allocated by ending the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. Representative Emanuel Celler of New York proposed the bill, Senator Philip Hart of Michigan co-sponsored it, and Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts helped to promote it.

    The Hart–Celler Act abolished the quota system based on national origins that had been American immigration policy since the 1920s. The 1965 Act marked a change from past U.S. policy which had discriminated against non-northern and western Europeans.[2] In removing racial and national barriers the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S.[2]

    The new law maintained the per-country limits, but also created preference visa categories that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. The bill set numerical restrictions on visas at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota. However, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and "special immigrants" had no restrictions.[1]



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Why do they die?
    Well, it certainly isn't because they hate us for our freedoms and want to vote for socialists, to commit crimes, or just for a welfare check. Does anyone really think that those things would be worth the risk of death? Obviously, just in the fact that this is happening, there must be some other reasons and motivations that are much more powerful. It's pretty easy to find out what those reasons are, all you have to do is talk to people who have come here from some other country, and ask them yourself why they came here. Try listening to the real reasons firsthand, rather than accepting the propaganda of the isolationists, police-staters, and racists. Ron Paul states that it is best to engage with people who are supposedly enemies, talk to them in an exchange of ideas and diplomacy, and follow the golden rule. Those who oppose Ron Paul will state otherwise, and attempt to mock him and his supporters.
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Ummm...no.

    Naturalization Act of 1790

    The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free White persons of good character. It thus excluded Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and later Asians, although free blacks were allowed citizenship at the state level in certain states. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, stating that such children "shall be considered as natural born citizens," the only US statute ever to use the term. It specified that the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."


    Coolidge signed the sweeping and enforced Immigration Act of 1924.

    The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the Asian Exclusion Act and National Origins Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that prevented immigration from Asia, set quotas on the number of immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere, and provided funding and an enforcement mechanism to carry out the longstanding ban on other immigrants.

    The 1924 act supplanted earlier acts to effectively ban all immigration from Asia[1][2] and set a total immigration quota of 165,000 for countries outside the Western Hemisphere, an 80% reduction from the pre-World War I average.[1] Quotas for specific countries were based on 2% of the U.S. population from that country as recorded in 1890.[2] As a result, populations poorly represented in 1890 were prevented from immigrating in proportionate numbers—especially affecting Italians, Jews, Greeks, Poles, and Slavs. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian, the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity."

    Congressional opposition was minimal.

    A key element of the act was its provisions for enforcement. The act provided funding and legal instructions to courts of deportation for immigrants whose national quotas were exceeded. The act was revised in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952[2] and replaced by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.


    Teddy Kennedy spearheaded the First Wave of Cultural Marxists in the 1960s, by pushing through the 1965 Immigration Act.

    They lied to American people and said it would not "change the face of the nation" when they knew all along that was exactly what it was going to do.

    The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act,[1] changed the way quotas were allocated by ending the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. Representative Emanuel Celler of New York proposed the bill, Senator Philip Hart of Michigan co-sponsored it, and Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts helped to promote it.

    The Hart–Celler Act abolished the quota system based on national origins that had been American immigration policy since the 1920s. The 1965 Act marked a change from past U.S. policy which had discriminated against non-northern and western Europeans.[2] In removing racial and national barriers the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S.[2]

    The new law maintained the per-country limits, but also created preference visa categories that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. The bill set numerical restrictions on visas at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota. However, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and "special immigrants" had no restrictions.[1]
    What part of what I said do you think any of this is evidence against?

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    Well, it certainly isn't because they hate us for our freedoms and want to vote for socialists, to commit crimes, or just for a welfare check. Does anyone really think that those things would be worth the risk of death? Obviously, just in the fact that this is happening, there must be some other reasons and motivations that are much more powerful. It's pretty easy to find out what those reasons are, all you have to do is talk to people who have come here from some other country, and ask them yourself why they came here. Try listening to the real reasons firsthand, rather than accepting the propaganda of the isolationists, police-staters, and racists. Ron Paul states that it is best to engage with people who are supposedly enemies, talk to them in an exchange of ideas and diplomacy, and follow the golden rule. Those who oppose Ron Paul will state otherwise, and attempt to mock him and his supporters.
    I have, many times.

    They come here to make a buck, says about 95% that I've talked with.

    But the point I was making is that, while they come here to make a buck, they do not come here for any sort of political freedom, because they bring with them the philosophy that turned their native land into a killing field in the first place.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    What part of what I said do you think any of this is evidence against?
    You said there were "open borders" prior to the Immigration Act of 1924.

    There was not, at least on becoming a citizen anyway.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Our $#@! doesn't stink.
    Just saying, I have enough sense to scratch at the door when I need to poop. Ain't saying it don't stink.
    T.S. Elliot's The Hollow Men

    Only on Ron Paul forums will you find someone who espouses a belief in the Non-Aggression principle and then proceed to display the most intense measures of passive-aggressiveness of anyone you will ever meet.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I have, many times.

    They come here to make a buck, says about 95% that I've talked with.

    But the point I was making is that, while they come here to make a buck, they do not come here for any sort of political freedom, because they bring with them the philosophy that turned their native land into a killing field in the first place.
    What philosophy is that? Being able to make a better living doesn't sound like a socialist, entitlement, or killing field type of mentality to me. Excellent to hear that you have also followed Ron Paul's advice!
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    You said there were "open borders" prior to the Immigration Act of 1924.

    There was not, at least on becoming a citizen anyway.
    Open borders and becoming a citizen are two totally different things.

    And I didn't say there were open borders before 1924. I said there were up until Progressivism, which started earlier than that. But the Immigration Act of 1924 itself was also definitely an adoption of the immigration policies of progressivism.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    What philosophy is that? Being able to make a better living doesn't sound like a socialist, entitlement, or killing field type of mentality to me. Excellent to hear that you have also followed Ron Paul's advice!
    The problem is that achieving wealth doesn't automatically translate to an understanding of liberty. Lots of people living on the west coast right now, *if* they are lucky enough to sell their overpriced homes, move to lower cost-of-living states with a wad of cash, and manage to adjust quite well to the economic differences. Very, very few, change their political insights once they've relocated.
    T.S. Elliot's The Hollow Men

    Only on Ron Paul forums will you find someone who espouses a belief in the Non-Aggression principle and then proceed to display the most intense measures of passive-aggressiveness of anyone you will ever meet.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    The problem is that achieving wealth doesn't automatically translate to an understanding of liberty. Lots of people living on the west coast right now, *if* they are lucky enough to sell their overpriced homes, move to lower cost-of-living states with a wad of cash, and manage to adjust quite well to the economic differences. Very, very few, change their political insights once they've relocated.
    That is true, if said people have no understanding of the causes of those economic conditions. What have immigrants personally said to you, that indicates no understanding or a false understanding of economic conditions that inspired them to come here?

    ETA: Your statement underscores Ron Paul's position of WHY it is important to engage with other people who may think differently on a diplomatic basis. If they can be brought to an understanding of what undermines prosperity without attacking their political beliefs, then those political beliefs are called into question.
    Last edited by invisible; 03-15-2019 at 02:26 PM.
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    That is true, if said people have no understanding of the causes of those economic conditions. What have immigrants personally said to you, that indicates no understanding or a false understanding of economic conditions that inspired them to come here?
    For the most part, they seem to be quite confused. They're successful capitalists, small business owners and hard workers. But of the ones I know who are naturalized/second+ generation immigrants and vote, they seem to be unwavering supporters of socialist policies and ardent democrats. I don't believe it has much to do with a belief they have a right to help themselves to the fruits of others' labor, but many I would put into a category of nanny-staters. It's their humanitarian duty to help others in need, but the flaw is they think government is the best tool to do so. It's just the way they were brought up, I suppose.
    T.S. Elliot's The Hollow Men

    Only on Ron Paul forums will you find someone who espouses a belief in the Non-Aggression principle and then proceed to display the most intense measures of passive-aggressiveness of anyone you will ever meet.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    What philosophy is that? Being able to make a better living doesn't sound like a socialist, entitlement, or killing field type of mentality to me. Excellent to hear that you have also followed Ron Paul's advice!
    I'm not sure what it is, exactly.

    I just know that, as a group, migrants consistently vote for bigger government.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Open borders and becoming a citizen are two totally different things.

    And I didn't say there were open borders before 1924. I said there were up until Progressivism, which started earlier than that. But the Immigration Act of 1924 itself was also definitely an adoption of the immigration policies of progressivism.
    Progressivism had already taken hold before Coolidge. But before that the USA had open borders.
    True enough, you said up until progressivism.

    But, assuming you agree that the "Progressive Era" was when that started, there were laws on the book about who could become a citizen.

    I figure that to be the same thing. Unless, of course, you're suggesting an open border policy that prohibits a migrant from voting, collecting any form of government funded relief or medical care.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    For the most part, they seem to be quite confused. They're successful capitalists, small business owners and hard workers. But of the ones I know who are naturalized/second+ generation immigrants and vote, they seem to be unwavering supporters of socialist policies and ardent democrats. I don't believe it has much to do with a belief they have a right to help themselves to the fruits of others' labor, but many I would put into a category of nanny-staters. It's their humanitarian duty to help others in need, but the flaw is they think government is the best tool to do so. It's just the way they were brought up, I suppose.
    Excellent to hear that you have also taken Ron Paul's advice. THIS is exactly how we win hearts and minds!
    BINGO! You nailed it with your response! In the first part of your statement, these observed attributes go directly against a socialist or entitlement mentality. Think about how our culture teaches from an early age that the only important thing is "winning" or coming out ahead of the other guy, no matter if you have to lie, cheat, or steal to do it. In many other cultures, people are taught to help one another and cooperate with each other. Sadly, it is a misconception that people do feel that a nanny state government is the best way to do that, just as people in our own culture feel the same way. However, the flaws in thinking that government is the best tool for that are easily understood, if the time is taken to engage in a diplomatic way to explain the flaws in that thinking. Repeatedly, I've personally found that the traits mentioned in the first part of you post easily cut through any confusion.
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I'm not sure what it is, exactly.

    I just know that, as a group, migrants consistently vote for bigger government.
    If you feel that that is true, then perhaps it would be a good idea to question them directly as to why, in a diplomatic manner. There is much that they can learn from you, just as you may be able to learn something from them, if Ron Paul's advice is followed.
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    What part of what I said do you think any of this is evidence against?

    LMAO




  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    If you feel that that is true, then perhaps it would be a good idea to question them directly as to why, in a diplomatic manner. There is much that they can learn from you, just as you may be able to learn something from them, if Ron Paul's advice is followed.
    Socialism Gifts Redistribution

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    If you feel that that is true, then perhaps it would be a good idea to question them directly as to why, in a diplomatic manner. There is much that they can learn from you, just as you may be able to learn something from them, if Ron Paul's advice is followed.
    It's not what I feel, it's fact.

    Because that's what most people want. Ron is wrong. Freedom is not popular.

    It's what people have always wanted.

    What we've tried here is very rare and very radical, actually, when you parse Jefferson's words closely.

    We're a tiny minority, globally, politically, historically.

    One to one is fine...one to ten million is impossible.

    Import another 50 million true believers of big government, on top of the ones we already have, and that's pretty much the end, we'll just be another failed North American empire/narco state.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    It's not what I feel, it's fact.

    Because that's what most people want. Ron is wrong. Freedom is not popular.

    It's what people have always wanted.

    What we've tried here is very rare and very radical, actually, when you parse Jefferson's words closely.

    We're a tiny minority, globally, politically, historically.

    One to one is fine...one to ten million is impossible.

    Import another 50 million true believers of big government, on top of the ones we already have, and that's pretty much the end, we'll just be another failed North American empire/narco state.
    We have enough trouble educating the people born here, how are we supposed to educate millions of people from foreign countries faster than they can come here?
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We have enough trouble educating the people born here, how are we supposed to educate millions of people from foreign countries faster than they can come here?
    Exactly.

    Everybody sees what happens when a state gets "Californicated" or flooded with "Half Backs" or "Massholes".

    Why is it so damn hard to understand the same thing happens with international migration?

    And yes, if I had my way I'd close a state's borders if it was under the same kind of assault.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Exactly.

    Everybody sees what happens when a state gets "Californicated" or flooded with "Half Backs" or "Massholes".

    Why is it so damn hard to understand the same thing happens with international migration?

    And yes, if I had my way I'd close a state's borders if it was under the same kind of assault.
    The Constitution recognizes the states' power to control immigration on their own:

    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
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    The whole point of the EU is that it's one big country. Sort of like the United States, but not as good.
    Right, their next step/phase is a political union where they vote for a single leader. I imagine the initial election for said leader would take place the following election from each country. Timed accordingly, say for example they all agree that in 2028 whoever your leader is that person runs against the other leaders who are elected.

    Or,

    They could simply rotate leadership like the UN does.
    - SUPPORT FREE TRADE, SMUGGLE -

    2 + 2 = 5.

  27. #53
    Open border countries? any dam country our MIC wants to invade. Merica $#@! Yeah!
    - SUPPORT FREE TRADE, SMUGGLE -

    2 + 2 = 5.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The Constitution recognizes the states' power to control immigration on their own:

    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
    Slavery clause.


    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    "China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very, very large brain," - Donald Trump.

    "Yeah, I have to say these guys(trolls) are pretty sharp. Sort of good to get a challenge and sharpen your thoughts." NorthCarolinaLiberty

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Slavery clause.
    So?

    It recognizes that the states have the right to decide who may enter them while giving the feds the power to be more restrictive, we have discussed the question of whether the feds were only given power about slaves elsewhere and I won't go into that here.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    So?

    It recognizes that the states have the right to decide who may enter them while giving the feds the power to be more restrictive, we have discussed the question of whether the feds were only given power about slaves elsewhere and I won't go into that here.
    Slavery was seen as commerce, not immigration.


    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    "China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very, very large brain," - Donald Trump.

    "Yeah, I have to say these guys(trolls) are pretty sharp. Sort of good to get a challenge and sharpen your thoughts." NorthCarolinaLiberty

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Slavery was seen as commerce, not immigration.
    That's why they used the word "migration"?
    It also says " such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit", that covers any persons and recognizes an existing right of the states to decide which persons to admit and that is all I am pointing out here.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That's why they used the word "migration"?
    It also says " such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit", that covers any persons and recognizes an existing right of the states to decide which persons to admit and that is all I am pointing out here.
    "Importing" referred to slaves brought into the US from another country. "Migration" was the movement of slaves between states.


    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    "China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very, very large brain," - Donald Trump.

    "Yeah, I have to say these guys(trolls) are pretty sharp. Sort of good to get a challenge and sharpen your thoughts." NorthCarolinaLiberty

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    "Importing" referred to slaves brought into the US from another country. "Migration" was the movement of slaves between states.
    Sure.

    It doesn't matter anyway as I have pointed out elsewhere and it really doesn't matter here because all that matters for my purposes here is "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit".
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Sure.

    It doesn't matter anyway as I have pointed out elsewhere and it really doesn't matter here because all that matters for my purposes here is "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit".
    "such persons" meaning slaves. Not immigrants.


    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    "China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very, very large brain," - Donald Trump.

    "Yeah, I have to say these guys(trolls) are pretty sharp. Sort of good to get a challenge and sharpen your thoughts." NorthCarolinaLiberty

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Free and open challenge to statists, both open & closed border supporters
    By Conza88 in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-23-2011, 12:38 AM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-14-2010, 07:13 AM
  3. Consequences to Open Border Policies
    By romacox in forum National Sovereignty
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 01-06-2010, 10:05 AM
  4. Hizbullah’s Mexican-US Open Border Connection
    By Chosen in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-03-2009, 08:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •