Trump Administration to Send Thousands of ICE Agents to Target Sanctuary Cities

[r3volution 3.0]

If the state need not = the nation, what is the alternative?

Any non-democratic state, or any democratic state where the electorate consists of multiple nations.

You know which I prefer, of course...

What's important is what the state does; who controls it is important only insofar as it affects what the state does.

[Swordsmyth]

Any non-democratic state, or any democratic state where the electorate consists of multiple nations.

You know which I prefer, of course...

What's important is what the state does, who controls it (that's important only insofar as it affects what the state does).

If that is what you mean then I agree, although I don't see how that affects the philosophy involved, only the size and make up of the group, which might still be less precisely referred to a "nation".

[r3volution 3.0]

If that is what you mean then I agree, although I don't see how that affects the philosophy involved, only the size and make up of the group, which might still be less precisely referred to a "nation".

The problem in saying that nations have rights is that it implies that any non-national state is illegitimate.

...or that national states have rights behind those required to secure the property rights of their subjects.

[UWDude]

My argument that nations have no rights is an ethical one; I'm saying they should have no rights.

Of course. You are arguing they "should" not exist. Which is as silly as saying crime, or armies, or war, should not exist. Guess what? They do. And because they do, there are realities that must be addressed because of that.

You are singing "imagine" by John Lennon. Beautiful song. Not realistic.

or that national states have rights behind those required to secure the property rights of their subjects.

What determines their subjects?
Well, mankind already came up for a pretty good solution for that one. It's called a line on the ground. You guys do what you want on your side of the line, and we do what we want on our side of the line. A.k.a. borders.

The state's only legitimate function is to secure the property rights of its subjects.

I agree.
Let me know when the Untied States government gets to that level, so it can stop seizing my property to support other people. And then when that happens, I'll be cool with free and open immigration. Until then, I am not cool with more illegal immigrants coming in to receive the money the state has seized from me beyond its moral mandate, to pay for their poverty.

[PierzStyx]

No matter how many times an untruth is repeated it does not become true.

Exactly. No matter how much you wish Article 1 Section 9 referred to immigration it does not.

It says Migration OR Importation, recognizing them as two different things.
Slaves are imported, migration is voluntary.

All in perspective. From the perspective of those in country it is importation. From the perspective of those being forcibly moved, it is migration.

Migration can be voluntary. It does not necessarily need be voluntary though. Nothing about either the definition fo the word or teh concept it refers to has anything to do with being voluntary or not.

I love it when Big Government Progressives like yourself are exposed for the frauds you are. Every historical source, every political opinion, every argument is against you and still you troop on. That kind of determined dedication to ignorance of facts, economics, and history would be amazing if it weren't so astoundingly tragic.

[TheCount]

So whether or not immigration is commerce section 9 recognizes congress power to restrict it by limiting it until 1808.

That's not how the Constitution works. Congress does not have unlimited powers unless limited by the Constitution, it has only the specified powers delegated to it by the states, upon which additional limitations were set.

[Swordsmyth]

Exactly. No matter how much you wish Article 1 Section 9 referred to immigration it does not.



All in perspective. From the perspective of those in country it is importation. From the perspective of those being forcibly moved, it is migration.

Migration can be voluntary. It does not necessarily need be voluntary though. Nothing about either the definition fo the word or teh concept it refers to has anything to do with being voluntary or not.

I love it when Big Government Progressives like yourself are exposed for the frauds you are. Every historical source, every political opinion, every argument is against you and still you troop on. That kind of determined dedication to ignorance of facts, economics, and history would be amazing if it weren't so astoundingly tragic.

The slaves point of view is not involved, they were not citizens, Migration is mentioned first and is differentiated from importation, slaves were considered property and therefore were "imported", free men were not property and therefore "migrated".

[Swordsmyth]

That's not how the Constitution works. Congress does not have unlimited powers unless limited by the Constitution, it has only the specified powers delegated to it by the states, upon which additional limitations were set.

It gives congress the power to limit migration and importation after 1808.

[Ender]

It gives congress the power to limit migration and importation after 1808.

AGAIN: the word migration was used to cover all bases, including servitude- the article is about slavery. Period.

[r3volution 3.0]

You are arguing they "should" not exist.

No, I'm arguing that they should have no rights distinct from those of their individual members: e.g. individual Italians have rights, the same as anyone else (i.e. to life and property), but the Italians as a group have no rights, such as might conflict with the rights of individual Italians (e.g. a majority of Italians voting to enslave the minority of Italians).

I'm not opposed to the existence of nations. What would that even mean? Teaching everyone Esperanto? Absurd. That's not the issue at stake.

What determines their subjects?
Well, mankind already came up for a pretty good solution for that one. It's called a line on the ground. You guys do what you want on your side of the line, and we do what we want on our side of the line. A.k.a. borders.

Whether there ought to be multiple states with discrete territories or a single world state is a pragmatic question: which arrangement is most likely secure the property rights of individuals. In any event, whether there are multiple states or a single world state, all states of any form have no legitimate function other than to secure the property rights of their subjects. This is the same whether the state is representative of a nation, of multiple nations, or is not representative at all. A state which goes beyond its legitimate functions commits a crime, no matter that it may be expressing the "will of the nation."

I agree.
Let me know when the Untied States government gets to that level, so it can stop seizing my property to support other people. And then when that happens, I'll be cool with free and open immigration. Until then, I am not cool with more illegal immigrants coming in to receive the money the state has seized from me beyond its moral mandate, to pay for their poverty.

So, absent welfare for immigrants, you'd be in favor of free immigration?

I'd be surprised if that's your view, but if it is, good, that's a relatively sensible position.

[Swordsmyth]

AGAIN: the word migration was used to cover all bases, including servitude- the article is about slavery. Period.

Including voluntary migration.
There was no need to use any word other than importation for slaves or indentured servants, since both were "property" one temporarily the other permanently.

[Ender]

Including voluntary migration.
There was no need to use any word other than importation for slaves or indentured servants, since both were "property" one temporarily the other permanently.

The next mention of the institution of slavery in the Constitution is found in Article I, Section 9. Once again it is not mentioned by work, but it is implied. This section deals with issues of importation and taxation of the slave trade. It reads:

The Migration and 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, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

This is a clause which must be carefully read and analyzed. It implies much more than a mere surface reading will bring to attention. First, the phrase "Migration and Importation of such Persons" implies the slave trade. Goods may be called imports, but if people are referred to as imports, it can mean nothing other than slavery. "e;States now existing" can mean only the original thirteen colonies which were already established at the ratification of the Constitution. This clause could not pertain to any states formed after the Constitution was established. Therefore, any territories that were later created could not participate in the importation of slaves. Also, the phrase "shall think proper to admit" implies that the states are free to choose to import slaves.

The clause then goes on to explain that the migration or importation of slaves cannot be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808. However, a tax or duty can be imposed on the importation of slaves as long as it does not exceed ten dollars per person.

The fact that Congress cannot abolish the slave trade until 1808, and also the inclusion of the tax provision, are variations or restrictions on the power of Congress. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes and duties and to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with Indian tribes. The provisions in Section 9 guard against amendment or changes to the slave trade. Otherwise Congress would have had the right to regulate the trade by the powers expressed in Section 8.

http://ashbrook.org/publications/respub-v6n1-boyd/

[Swordsmyth]

http://ashbrook.org/publications/respub-v6n1-boyd/

I'll take Jefferson's point of view over your Interpretation:

"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

[Ender]

I'll take Jefferson's point of view over your Interpretation:

"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

According to your logic that was 1816, so it doesn't count.

[Swordsmyth]

According to your logic that was 1816, so it doesn't count.

What are you thinking?
1816 is after 1808.

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

[Ender]

What are you thinking?
1816 is after 1808.

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

Exactly so Article 1 is no longer and issue.

[Swordsmyth]

Exactly so Article 1 is no longer and issue.

You need professional help.
After 1808 article 1 section 9 no longer prohibits the restriction of immigration, therefore after 1808 immigration may be restricted as the quote from Jefferson shows.

[Ender]

You need professional help.
After 1808 article 1 section 9 no longer prohibits the restriction of immigration, therefore after 1808 immigration may be restricted as the quote from Jefferson shows.

I think you are the one that needs some help.

Article 1 is about.....wait for it.....wait for it.........SLAVERY. BUT INSTEAD OF READING THE REAL MEANING OF THE ARTICLE, you throw your little hate-bait agenda into it.

[Swordsmyth]

I think you are the one that needs some help.

Article 1 is about.....wait for it.....wait for it.........SLAVERY. BUT INSTEAD OF READING THE REAL MEANING OF THE ARTICLE, you throw your little hate-bait agenda into it.

You just won't deal with Jefferson's statement will you?

[r3volution 3.0]

@Swordsmyth

Do you know of any case in which any American court, at any level, ever adopted your interpretation of Art. I. Sec. 9?

Do you know of any commentary by the founders (i.e. commentary on that specific section) explaining that they intended that meaning?

[Swordsmyth]

@Swordsmyth

Do you know of any case in which any American court, at any level, ever adopted your interpretation of Art. I. Sec. 9?

Do you know of any commentary by the founders (i.e. commentary on that specific section) explaining that they intended that meaning?

I doubt it ever came up, for the first 20 years they were restricted and after that no immigration controls were put in effect until after nobody cared about the constitution.
But Jefferson clearly states that "We may exclude them from our territory" and Art. I. Sec. 9 or Article IV, Section 4 are the only 2 possible sources of that power.
And further more there is no other GOOD explanation for why it was worded that way.

[r3volution 3.0]

But Jefferson clearly states that "We may exclude them from our territory" and Art. I. Sec. 9 or Article IV, Section 4 are the only 2 possible sources of that power.

Was Jefferson explaining what the Constitution meant or only expressing his own political views?

And further more there is no other GOOD explanation for why it was worded that way.

One fairly good explanation is that is was simply a redundancy, of which there are others in the Constitution. E.G. "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Are they actually trying to make a meaningful distinction between the "government" and the "regulation" of the military forces? What would that be?

Another, as I think others have explained, is that they were referring to indentured servants, who were not formally property, on which interpretation Congress gained the power to regulate migration of indentured servants after 1808, as to regulate importation of slaves, but not to regulate other types of immigration.

The political backstory to Art. I Sec. 9 is all about slavery, AFAIK, as it was a compromise between slave states and free states. After 1808, Congress did in fact ban the import of slaves, while, as you know, nothing whatsoever was done to restrict immigration for the better part of a century. This says something about their intent in drafting that section, I would say.

[RJB]

You just won't deal with Jefferson's statement will you?

Didn't you know that if an opponent mentions slavery or calls you a racist in a debate you are supposed to immediately concede? Oh the good old days before the 2016 election, when name calling trumped logic-- no pun intended.

[Ender]

Didn't you know that if an opponent mentions slavery or calls you a racist in a debate you are supposed to immediately concede? Oh the good old days before the 2016 election, when name calling trumped logic-- no pun intended.

I don't care who talks about slavery- BUT-

Even in the early days of the Constitution mentioning "slavery" was not PC. That's why the word does not show up in Article 1.

Nevertheless, Article 1 Section 9 is about slavery. Scholars of the constitution say that the words "migration" and "importation" were both put in to cover any indentured servants/slaves issues plus enable the writers to avoid the word "slavery". The section is NOT about migration.

I've posted several links but Swordsmyth insists that the article is speaking of migration as he understands it in today's world.

Oh well, onward and upward.

[TheCount]

It gives congress the power to limit migration and importation after 1808.

Why, then, does the wording not at all resemble the wording of the other powers granted to Congress?

Why did they accidentally put it in the wrong section?

[phill4paul]

“[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible… founded in good policy?… They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass… If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements.”
–Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:118

^^^

[Swordsmyth]

^^^

"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]

Was Jefferson explaining what the Constitution meant or only expressing his own political views?

He stated that the government had the power, and the government only gets it's powers from the constitution.

One fairly good explanation is that is was simply a redundancy, of which there are others in the Constitution. E.G. "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Are they actually trying to make a meaningful distinction between the "government" and the "regulation" of the military forces? What would that be?

Government=Hierarchical command structure.
Regulation=Rules

Another, as I think others have explained, is that they were referring to indentured servants, who were not formally property, on which interpretation Congress gained the power to regulate migration of indentured servants after 1808, as to regulate importation of slaves, but not to regulate other types of immigration.

Indentured servants as differentiated from slaves came of their own free will and were not property, that makes them legally indistinguishable from any other immigrant, if congress can control their migration it can control any migration.

The political backstory to Art. I Sec. 9 is all about slavery, AFAIK, as it was a compromise between slave states and free states. After 1808, Congress did in fact ban the import of slaves, while, as you know, nothing whatsoever was done to restrict immigration for the better part of a century. This says something about their intent in drafting that section, I would say.

That was the high profile facet of the debate, and perhaps they would have forgotten about immigration control without it, but the word migration was put first and can only mean voluntary immigrants as opposed to slaves.

[Swordsmyth]

Why, then, does the wording not at all resemble the wording of the other powers granted to Congress?

Because they wished to emphasize the restriction on congress until1808.

Why did they accidentally put it in the wrong section?

Who says it is the wrong section?

[r3volution 3.0]

Indentured servants as differentiated from slaves came of their own free will and were not property

Yes, hence you might call them migrants.

that makes them legally indistinguishable from any other immigrant, if congress can control their migration it can control any migration.

That doesn't follow.

If the state bans importation of apples, does it follow that it's banned importation of all fruit?