# Lifestyles & Discussion > Family, Parenting & Education > Books & Literature >  Open Borders Romantics

## timosman

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...-reihan-salam/




> September 25, 2018
> 
> 
> Immigration will only benefit our country if were committed to assimilating new arrivals.
> _Editors Note: The following excerpt is adapted from Reihan Salams new book, Melting Pot or Civil War: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case against Open Borders. It appears here with permission._
> 
> Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, said President Barack Obama, for we know the heart of a stranger  for we were strangers once too. . . . And whether our forebears were strangers who crossed the Atlantic or the Pacific or the Rio Grande, we are here only because this country welcomed them in, and taught them that to be an American is about something more than what we look like, or what our last names are, or how we worship. What makes us Americans is our shared commitment to an ideal  that all of us are created equal, and all of us have the chance to make of our lives what we will.
> 
> One of Obamas great talents was his unsurpassed ability to stack the rhetorical deck. Here he was announcing his executive order for deportation relief in 2014. To disagree with him was not just to reject his take on the costs and benefits of a particular policy, it was to oppress a stranger, which no less an authority than Scripture tells us is a very bad thing to do. Yet there was a small wrinkle in the former presidents remarks. *While calling on his fellow citizens to welcome the millions of strangers who make their way to our country to better their lives, he also insisted that his executive action would shield only those whod been in the country unlawfully for five years or more. Moreover, it did not extend to those who might settle in the United States unlawfully in the future.*
> ...

----------


## fisharmor

Still doesn't explain how immigration isn't a 10th Amendment issue.

Also, I'm immediately disinclined to take advice on immigration policy from a man named "Reihan Salam".  If there is any one group of people I would build strong fences to keep out, it's the ones that forced his ancestors to start using names like that.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Still doesn't explain how immigration isn't a 10th Amendment issue.
> 
> Also, I'm immediately disinclined to take advice on immigration policy from a man named "Reihan Salam".  If there is any one group of people I would build strong fences to keep out, it's the ones that forced his ancestors to start using names like that.





> 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.

----------


## fisharmor

That must be why for almost a century the federal government did pretty much nothing to control immigration.

The founders must really have been wise to grant a power that nobody even knew about for almost a century.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That must be why for almost a century the federal government did pretty much nothing to control immigration.
> 
> The founders must really have been wise to grant a power that nobody even knew about for almost a century.


They knew about it, they just didn't use it because they didn't think they needed to at that time, there are other powers in the Constitution that they didn't use either.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Still doesn't explain how immigration isn't a 10th Amendment issue.
> 
> Also, I'm immediately disinclined to take advice on immigration policy from a man named "Reihan Salam".  If there is any one group of people I would build strong fences to keep out, it's the ones that forced his ancestors to start using names like that.


You can read the Constitution and see that immigration is explicitly enumerated in the powers of Congress ("uniform rule of Naturalization"), and confirmed by implication.

While one may argue at length as to whether naturalization was then considered to cover immigration also, the next section leaves no room for reasonable doubt that that is the case:




> 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


No reason for this clause to exist unless post-1808 immigration could be prohibited by Congress afterwards, which in turn means that the enumerated power of naturalization also covers legal immigration (while the duty to protect against invasion covers the illegal kind).

----------


## fisharmor

> You can read the Constitution and see that immigration is explicitly enumerated in the powers of Congress ("uniform rule of Naturalization"), and confirmed by implication.
> 
> While one may argue at length as to whether naturalization was then considered to cover immigration also, the next section leaves no room for reasonable doubt that that is the case:
> 
> 
> 
> No reason for this clause to exist unless post-1808 immigration could be prohibited by Congress afterwards, which in turn means that the enumerated power of naturalization also covers legal immigration (while the duty to protect against invasion covers the illegal kind).


Are you on crack?  That 1808 clause is clearly about the importation of new slaves and there has never been an alternate explanation of it prior to you closet racists pulling 10 th amendment violtion apologetics out of your asses.

----------


## timosman

> Are you on crack?  That 1808 clause is clearly about the importation of new slaves and there has never been an alternate explanation of it prior to you closet racists pulling 10 th amendment violtion apologetics out of your asses.


Are you always this comfortable calling people names and throwing baseless accusations?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Are you on crack?  That 1808 clause is clearly about the importation of new slaves and there has never been an alternate explanation of it prior to you closet racists pulling 10 th amendment violtion apologetics out of your asses.


It clearly refers to a power that the federal government would have, I have shown you that it is based in the "law of nations" power.

----------


## Aratus

> They knew about it, they just didn't use it because they didn't think they needed to at that time, there are other powers in the Constitution that they didn't use either.


It took a while, about almost 80 years, for a POTUS to get even close to being as impeachable as DJT is now... 
From John Adams to the Senate Trial of 1868 there is 68 years. 131 years seperate A.J from Comrade Bill...

----------


## CaptainAmerica

Logically, a border with Mexico , an undeveloped piece of _____ hole of a country cannot remain open to civilized Arizona. 
Here is why:
cartels operating businesses
cartels human trafficking
cartels recruiting 
cartels sending coyotes into close proximities of our cities, in hiking trails that once were safe to use
criminals moving here to escape their country all the way from south america (yes this is real, since the 1990s.my dad knows spanish and english,and has spoken to them directly, and these day laborers have told him stories that most of you wont hear). 
Open border  is an incentive for enemies of the people to exploit.
did I mention that Mexico is a shiiit hole? Who wouldn't want to escape it...but incentivizing a trek across the desert in which cartels now exploit? NO.

Its common sense. I also have come to learn that if your USPS or UPS delivery courier leaves a shipment on your doorstep...that you better expect the criminals to start checking your doorstep every day, and that you will become a target of crime. THAT is exactly the logic behind why open borders is stupid...it invites crimes of the highest degree.

----------

