# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Article 1 Section 9

## Swordsmyth

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

It is after 1808.

"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

----------


## phill4paul

Have a mod move the relevant posts from this thread, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nctuary-Cities, and I'll participate. I'm not going to present my argument from scratch again.

----------


## fedupinmo

Then there's Article IV, Section 4.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Have a mod move the relevant posts from this thread, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nctuary-Cities, and I'll participate. I'm not going to present my argument from scratch again.


I would like that, this topic deserves it's own thread.
Mods here is another thread with relevant posts: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...cheese-faction

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Then there's Article IV, Section 4.


*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;

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *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*;


If I walk across a line on a map to seek a job or to try to sell you something or to buy something from you, am I invading? Or do I need to have a gun?

----------


## oyarde

> If I walk across a line on a map to seek a job or to try to sell you something or to buy something from you, am I invading? Or do I need to have a gun?


Depends on whose line it is . If it is my line , yes it is invasion.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> If I walk across a line on a map to seek a job or to try to sell you something or to buy something from you, am I invading? Or do I need to have a gun?


If you come violating the rules set for coming you are invading.
If you look in my window it is "Invasion of privacy" no weapons needed.

----------


## Swordsmyth

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)

----------


## Swordsmyth

A1S8

*To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization*, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

----------


## Zippyjuan

> A1S8
> 
> *To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization*, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;


"Naturalization" (being allowed to become a citizen) and immigration (being allowed to cross a border) are not necessarily the same thing but in order to allow naturalization you must allow immigration.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> "Naturalization" (being allowed to become a citizen) and immigration (being allowed to cross a border) are not necessarily the same thing but in order to allow naturalization you must allow immigration.


And S9 gives the congress power over the migration or importation of people after 1808.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> And S9 gives the congress power over the migration or importation of people after 1808.


That referred to slaves.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That referred to slaves.


 "such Persons as *  any* of the States now existing shall think proper to  admit"

That covers any/everybody.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> "such Persons as *  any* of the States now existing shall think proper to  admit"
> 
> That covers any/everybody.


"Any" refers to the states- not "any person".  "such persons" refers to the slaves.




> any of the States

----------


## Swordsmyth

> "Any" refers to the states- not "any person".  "such persons" refers to the slaves.


Including non-slave states who were not importing slaves.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Depends on whose line it is . If it is my line , yes it is invasion.


And if it is no one's line, then it is not.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> And if it is no one's line, then it is not.


And if it is OUR line then it is.

----------


## Dr.3D

Seems to me, somebody has been blurring the line between immigration and *illegal* immigration.   

So often, folks like to omit the *illegal* part of the later and call it all immigration.

One is like inviting someone to live with us and the other is just letting someone who broke in to live with us.

----------


## TheCount

> "such Persons as *  any* of the States now existing shall think proper to  admit"


Using your logic this grants each state the power to decide to allow or forbid immigration.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Using your logic this grants each state the power to decide to allow or forbid immigration.


No, Congress is granted the power, read the whole sentence not just the part I was emphasizing:

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



The question of whether states can control their borders is not addressed in A1S9, you could claim that they have that power under the 10th amendment since it is not prohibited them anywhere in the constitution but that has nothing to do with A1S9.

It does seem to be implied though since it refers to   " such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper  to  admit".

----------


## TheCount

> No, Congress is granted the power, read the whole sentence not just the part I was emphasizing:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> The question of whether states can control their borders is not addressed in A1S9, you could claim that they have that power under the 10th amendment since it is not prohibited them anywhere in the constitution but that has nothing to do with A1S9.
> ...


 Following your logic, Congress has the power to forbid only; in other words, they would have no regulatory power whatsoever.  The department of state would not operate consulates or issue visas.  Each state could issue its own tourist, work, and permanent residency visas, and every other state would have to accept them. Therefore, the immigration system for the entire country would be dictated by the most permissive state, or the state most interested in profiting from visa sales.  Which state do you suppose that would be?  How easy would it be to get permanent us residency under your system?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Following your logic, Congress has the power to forbid only; in other words, they would have no regulatory power whatsoever.  The department of state would not operate consulates or issue visas.  Each state could issue its own tourist, work, and permanent residency visas, and every other state would have to accept them. Therefore, the immigration system for the entire country would be dictated by the most permissive state, or the state most interested in profiting from visa sales.  Which state do you suppose that would be?  How easy would it be to get permanent us residency under your system?


No, the power to forbid grants everything else, all the congress must do is say "We forbid entry to anyone who does not follow the rules set forth as follows" then list the rules, anyone not following them would be forbidden.

The states may have the power to be MORE restrictive and require foreigners to meet more strenuous standards to enter their territory.

----------


## TheCount

> No, the power to forbid grants everything else, all the congress must do is say "We forbid entry to anyone who does not follow the rules set forth as follows" then list the rules, anyone not following them would be forbidden.


Doesn't say anything about federal control over entry, in fact it says that states are the ones who admit others.  What the authority over "migration" would be  something else.  And after the "migration" is over the federal government would have no power whatsoever.  Your beloved ICE would just become a customs agency.

If I were a state trying to encourage immigration, I would give out short tourist visas to get people into the country, and pass out the work and residency visas after that, at which point you'd be outside of the scope of federal control.





> The states may have the power to be MORE restrictive and require foreigners to meet more strenuous standards to enter their territory.


Of course you would think that.

That's the second alternate interpretation using your logic: federal control over the movement of everyone - including citizens - from state to state, and state authority of admission of anyone within their borders.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Doesn't say anything about federal control over entry, in fact it says that states are the ones who admit others.  What the authority over "migration" would be  something else.  And after the "migration" is over the federal government would have no power whatsoever.  Your beloved ICE would just become a customs agency.
> 
> If I were a state trying to encourage immigration, I would give out short tourist visas to get people into the country, and pass out the work and residency visas after that, at which point you'd be outside of the scope of federal control.


Sorry to disappoint you but the feds have power to enforce their laws and the states could not bring in anyone the feds forbade:

A1S8
...To  make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into  Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this  Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any  Department or Officer thereof.





> That's the second alternate interpretation using your logic: federal control over the movement of everyone - including citizens - from state to state, and state authority of admission of anyone within their borders.


Nope, A4S2:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And amendment 14:


All  persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the  jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State  wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Neither the Feds nor the states can deny entry into a state to any citizen since they are entitled to the same privileges as the citizens of that state, one of those privileges being the right to enter that state.




Then there is always a 9th amendment argument:
The  enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be  construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

----------


## TheCount

> Nope, A4S2:
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


That just means that they have to treat their own state's residents the same.




> And amendment 14:
> 
> All  persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the  jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State  wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Doesn't say anything about migration of "such person" citizens from state to state.




> Neither the Feds nor the states can deny entry into a state to any citizen since they are entitled to the same privileges as the citizens of that state, one of those privileges being the right to enter that state.


Is migration not the same as entry?




> Then there is always a 9th amendment argument:
> The  enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be  construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Doesn't say citizens; is that a right that you want to give to everyone?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That just means that they have to treat their own state's residents the same.


It also says they have to treat citizens of other states the same as their own citizens and the feds can't treat the citizens of different states differently.






> Doesn't say anything about migration of "such person" citizens from state to state.


Just like above they can't treat citizens of other states differently and the feds can't either, since the citizens of each state can enter that state freely then the citizens of the other states or those of federal territories can as well.




> Is migration not the same as entry?


Internal migration by citizens is specially protected by the clauses I cited, external migration into the country by foreigners may be prohibited by the congress.




> Doesn't say citizens; is that a right that you want to give to everyone?


It says "the people" as in "we the people of the United States", that means citizens.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> And if it is OUR line then it is.


If that were true, you would be right. Unfortunately, it seems "our" deed to the line got lost in the shuffle.

----------


## TheCount

> It also says they have to treat citizens of other states the same as their own citizens and the feds can't treat the citizens of different states differently.


That's what I said.  So long as they treat everyone the same, ie: by forbidding their own residents as well as residents of other states from leaving (migration goes both ways) or entering the state freely.






> Internal migration by citizens is specially protected by the clauses I cited, external migration into the country by foreigners may be prohibited by the congress.


Where does it say that?  I don't see internal, external, foreigners, citizens...  Somehow we're not supposed to interpret "such person's" as slaves, as was actually intended by the founders, but we can take it to mean foreigners?  If A1S9 is granting the federal government the power to refuse the migration of "such person's", isn't it also granting the states the power to selectively admit "such persons?"



I appreciate your assistance.  You're doing a fantastic job of illustrating exactly what I've said in other threads: you have an intended goal in mind, and you selectively interpret the law and Constitution as you see fit, in an entirely inconsistent manner - sometimes highly literal, sometimes not - in order to reach that goal, logic be damned.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That's what I said.  So long as they treat everyone the same, ie: by forbidding their own residents as well as residents of other states from leaving (migration goes both ways) or entering the state freely.


No, they allow their citizens to enter their state so they must allow the citizens of other states to enter their state, furthermore no one has ever contemplated forbidding the citizens of the several states from entering or leaving their states so your whole line of attack is nothing but a strawman.








> Where does it say that?  I don't see internal, external, foreigners, citizens...  Somehow we're not supposed to interpret "such person's" as slaves, as was actually intended by the founders, but we can take it to mean foreigners?  If A1S9 is granting the federal government the power to refuse the migration of "such person's", isn't it also granting the states the power to selectively admit "such persons?"


It means any/everybody but it is then limited by the other clauses I cited so that Congress can't restrict the rights of citizens to enter the various states.

Not all of the founders intended it to only apply to slaves and those that did had to grant Congress the power over ALL immigration in order to avoid admitting slaves to be property.






> I appreciate your assistance.  You're doing a fantastic job of illustrating exactly what I've said in other threads: you have an intended goal in mind, and you selectively interpret the law and Constitution as you see fit, in an entirely inconsistent manner - sometimes highly literal, sometimes not - in order to reach that goal, logic be damned.


Nope.

I dare you to show where I have interpreted the Constitution any less literally than I have here.

----------


## TheCount

> Nope.
> 
> I dare you to show where I have interpreted the Constitution any less literally than I have here.


K.




> P.S. I would consider supporting a "Free speech" web-hosting/search engine/file hosting service as a part of the post office, they would be the ones to run a "net neutrality" ISP as well.





> The transfer of information is *the job* of the post office.



Please pull out the same dictionary that you used to define migration and use it to define post office.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> K.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please pull out the same dictionary that you used to define migration and use it to define post office.


*Definition of post*                                                                                                                                                        1                 obsolete                                      *: courier* 


                                                   2                 archaic      

                                              a                                       *:* one of a series of stations for keeping horses for relays      
                                             b                                       *:* the distance between any two such consecutive stations *:* stage 

                                                   3                 chiefly British      

                                              a                                       *: a nation's organization for handling mail;                              also                                      : the mail handled               *  

                                                          b (1)                                       *: a single dispatch of mail* 

                             (2)                                       *:* letter 2a      

                                             c                                       *:* post office 
                                             d                                       *:* postbox 



*Definition of courier*                                                                                                                                                                     1                                       *:* messenger: such as      
                                                   a                                       *:* a member of a diplomatic (see diplomatic 2) service entrusted with bearing messages      



*Definition of letter*                                                                                                                                                        1                                       *:* a symbol usually written or printed representing a speech sound and constituting a unit of an alphabet      

                                                  2 a                                       *:* a direct or personal written or printed message addressed to a person or organization      
                                             b                                       *:* a written communication containing a grant                                        —usually used in plural

----------


## TheCount

> ...


Exactly.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Exactly.


Just what about the internet doesn't fit those definitions?

----------


## TheCount

> Just what about the internet doesn't fit those definitions?


All of it.  It's not national, there are no couriers, and there are no letters.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> All of it.  It's not national


If the the government built it's own infrastructure it would be, try reading the context of the quote you grabbed next time.




> there are no couriers


*Definition of courier*

                                                                                                                                                                       1                                        *:* messenger: such as      
                                                   a                                       *:* a member of a diplomatic (see diplomatic 2) service entrusted with bearing messages      

Sounds like my ISP's employees, they provide a service bearing messages.




> and there are no letters.


*Definition of letter*

                                                  2 a                                       *:* a direct or personal written or printed message addressed to a person or organization      

I got your letter and this message answering it is mine.

----------


## TheCount

> *Definition of courier*
> 
>                                                                                                                                                                        1                                        *:* messenger: such as      
>                                                    a                                       *:* a member of a diplomatic (see diplomatic 2) service entrusted with bearing messages      
> 
> Sounds like my ISP's employees, they provide a service bearing messages.









> *Definition of letter*
> 
>                                                   2 a                                       *:* a direct or personal written or printed message addressed to a person or organization      
> 
> I got your letter and this message answering it is mine.


Well, sounds like there should be a government cellular phone service for text messaging, government land line services for faxes, government printing services, government-run newspapers... really, with your definition of post office, the government needs to be involved in every means of communication.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Well, sounds like there should be a government cellular phone service for text messaging, government land line services for faxes, government printing services, government-run newspapers... really, with your definition of post office, the government needs to be involved in every means of communication.


Needs to be?

If you go back to the original conversation where the subject came up you will find that I said it was something that government COULD do if net neutrality was so important, they MIGHT build their own infrastructure and run a net neutrality ISP as part of the post office.

Just because government can do a thing doesn't mean it should, even if something is constitutional doesn't mean that the government NEEDS to do it.

----------


## TheCount

> Needs to be?
> 
> If you go back to the original conversation where the subject came up you will find that I said it was something that government COULD do if net neutrality was so important, they MIGHT build their own infrastructure and run a net neutrality ISP as part of the post office.


The important thing is that you think that's within their powers given an overbroad and frankly ridiculously liberal interpretation of the constitution.




> Just because government can do a thing doesn't mean it should, even if something is constitutional doesn't mean that the government NEEDS to do it.


How's that working out for all the rest of the government's powers?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> an overbroad and frankly ridiculously liberal interpretation of the constitution.



Nope, the internet fits the post office clause the same way the Air Force fits the army clause. 





> How's that working out for all the rest of the government's powers?


About as well as the enumeration of powers is working out, but you can't blame me for that or put words in my mouth.
In point of fact government doesn't do everything it could do or that the constitution would allow it to do, it definitely does too much though.

I want government limited by enumerated powers and I don't want it to do things just because it can.

----------


## osan

> If I walk across a line on a map to seek a job or to try to sell you something or to buy something from you, am I invading?


Yes, you are.

Next.

----------


## Superfluous Man

Here's a good article on the migration and importation clause.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.63ffc307b13f

Excerpt:



> The Migration or Importation Clause states that 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, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. In and of itself, the Clause does not grant Congress any additional authority. To the contrary, it is a limitation on power. However, it could be argued that the limitation on congressional power to prohibit migration or importation of persons until 1808 implies that Congress had such a power to begin with. The word migration suggests that that power extended to the prohibition of voluntary immigration, as well as the importation of slaves, which the Migration or Importation Clause was intended to protect.
> 
> But the inclusion of the term migration was not meant to imply a general federal power to restrict migration, but was a euphemism intended to bolster the pretense that the Constitution did not endorse slavery. As John Jay  the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and coauthor of the Federalist Papers  pointed out in an 1819 letter discussing the Clause:
> ....


The most important observation on the constitutional question is the very obvious one that this clause does not grant the federal government any powers at all that are not already enumerated in the Constitution elsewhere.

But even more important than the constitutional question is the moral question. Since it would be unjust for the federal government to restrict immigration, then any legislation it passes to do that is void on those grounds, no matter what the Constitution says. The Constitution does not anywhere authorize the federal government to do that, but if it did, all that would mean is that the Constitution was wrong about another thing.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Here's a good article on the migration and importation clause.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.63ffc307b13f
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> 
> The most important observation on the constitutional question is the very obvious one that this clause does not grant the federal government any powers at all that are not already enumerated in the Constitution elsewhere.
> 
> But even more important than the constitutional question is the moral question. Since it would be unjust for the federal government to restrict immigration, then any legislation it passes to do that is void on those grounds, no matter what the Constitution says. The Constitution does not anywhere authorize the federal government to do that, but if it did, all that would mean is that the Constitution was wrong about another thing.


You are wrong, the Constitution does grant Congress the power and it is not morally wrong.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You are wrong, the Constitution does grant Congress the power and it is not morally wrong.


Please quote the words of the Constitution you're talking about.

And it's easy to show how it's morally wrong, if you really doubt that.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Please quote the words of the Constitution you're talking about.


They are in this thread




> And it's easy to show how it's morally wrong, if you really doubt that.


It isn't morally wrong so it is impossible to show that it is.

----------


## Swordsmyth

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

----------


## Swordsmyth

> In addition, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a *RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790*
> 
> *Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with  useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and,  therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to  America.  This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was  satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity,  for five hundred years to come.  There was another class of men, whom he  did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown  in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants,  who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to  acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off  all their property with them.  These people injure us more than they do  us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to  nothing but leeches.  They stick to us until they get their fill of our  best blood, and then they fall off and leave us.  I look upon the  privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought  not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that  I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour  out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to  prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power;  the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.* 
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *There was a time not too long ago in New York  when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program  created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New  York City and many other major cities are infested with countless  government cheese factions from $#@! hole countries, who not only demand  welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.
> *


...

----------


## Swordsmyth

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

----------


## timosman

> All of it.  It's not national, there are no couriers, and there are no letters.


There are packets and it's global.

----------


## Swordsmyth

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

----------


## TheCount

> ...


Did you not bother to read it?  He advocates the immigration of laborers and opposes European merchants.  Such an argument would support Hispanic immigrants.


You must have also missed the part where a congressman in 1790 believed that congress did not have the power to ban immigration:




> *I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power;*

----------


## 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/

The article includes the following link to an opposing view:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d16fadae5398

Interesting stuff.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Did you not bother to read it?  He advocates the immigration of laborers and opposes European merchants.  Such an argument would support Hispanic immigrants.


They didn't have such a massive political difference between us and the rest of the world, socialism hadn't swept the globe yet, also he was opposed to those *"**who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to   acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off   all their property with them.",* that sounds like migrant laborers to me, it also sounds like almost all work visas.





> You must have also missed the part where a congressman in 1790 believed that congress did not have the power to ban immigration:


He was confused.
Jefferson said congress did:



"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

*In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), Jefferson reflects:  



"It is for the happiness of those united in society  to harmonize as much as possi- ble            in matters which they  must of necessity transact together. Civil government being             the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be  conducted by common            consent.




"Every species of government has its specific principles.  Ours perhaps are more            peculiar than those of any other in  the universe. It is a composition of the freest            principles  of the English Constitution, with others derived from natural right and             natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than  the maxims of abso- lute            monarchies. Yet from such we are to  expect the greatest number of emi- grants." (3)

   Jefferson warns, nearly prophetically:  



"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 un-  bounded            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 pro- portion to their numbers, they            will share with us the  legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its             directions, and render it a heterogeneous, in- coherent,  distracted mass." (4)

   There is theory; and then there is reality. Jefferson was schooled in  both. He knew that, to every liberal law,   there were some reasonable limits. 
  We need artisans, he admitted, but not enemies. We want true freedom  seekers to come, but without  "extraordinary encouragements." (5) 
   What would Thomas Jefferson, therefore, think of an immigration  policy today that, with flashing lights invites   the non-working masses  of the world to come--to come from countries that hate us, to a feast  of "free" food,  "free" health care, "free" education, "free" social  security benefits, and free and instant voter registration cards?     It  is hard to see Jefferson calling it anything but extraordinarily  unwise, and extraordinarily rev- olutionary.  Jefferson would have  proposed something better--a policy liberal in its ex- tension of the  blessings of liberty to    those who desired it, and conservative in its  eco- nomic and political common sense. 
Footnotes: 
 1. Bergh, Albert Ellery, Editor. "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Volume 3, p. 338.
2. Ibid., pgs. 338-339.
3. Bergh, Volume 2, p. 120.
4. Ibid., p. 121. 5. Ibid. 



More at: http://proconservative.net/PCVol5Is2...security.shtml
*

----------


## Swordsmyth

“The  first consideration in immigration is the welfare of the receiving  nation. In a new government based on principles  unfamiliar to the rest  of the world and resting on the sentiments of  the people themselves, the  influx of a large number of new immigrants  unaccustomed to the  government of a free society could be detrimental to that society.  Immigration, therefore, must be approached carefully and cautiously.”

Thomas Jefferson

----------


## TheCount

> They didn't have such a massive political difference between us and the rest of the world


There wasn't a massive political difference between the US and a world full of monarchies and other dictatorships?




> *"**who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to   acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off   all their property with them.",*


You forgot to quote the words before that.  I'm sure that it's a simple mistake and not part of your overall pattern of selective reading of nearly everything in order to misinterpret it in a way that benefits your argument.




> that sounds like migrant laborers to me, it also sounds like almost all work visas.


Then we should give people permanent residency instead of work visas so that they stay.

Right?

Or do you genuinely believe that the people who are applying for work visas would refuse residency and citizenship?





> He was confused.


If he's wrong, why are you quoting him to bolster your argument?  Or is he just selectively wrong on the most important point, the ability of congress to regulate immigration, but correct when relating his personal opinions?





> Jefferson said congress did:
> 
> "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


You are confused.

First, he never mentions Congress.

Second, he's talking about citizens and states who advocate profit and war, and his willingness to split from them rather than maintain the union at all costs.

Here is the next part:
"Such is the position of our country. We have most abundant resources of happiness within ourselves, which we may enjoy in peace and safety, without permitting* a few citizens*, infected with the mania of rambling and gambling, to bring danger on the great mass engaged in innocent and safe pursuits at home. In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose: 1. licentious commerce, and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2. restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation, with the alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.' *I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture*."


Has absolutely nothing to do with immigrants.  Both of your quotes are about merchants, and you're twisting them to be about foreign laborers.

----------


## TheCount

> *
> 
> "Every species of government has its specific principles.  Ours perhaps are more            peculiar than those of any other in  the universe. It is a composition of the freest            principles  of the English Constitution, with others derived from natural right and             natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than  the maxims of abso- lute            monarchies. Yet from such we are to  expect the greatest number of emi- grants." (3)
> *


 Thank you for finding this quote to support my argument.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> There wasn't a massive political difference between the US and a world full of monarchies and other dictatorships?


By comparison to modern times the difference was much smaller, the monarchies of the time intruded far less into their subjects lives than modern socialists do, ask R3v if you don't believe me.





> You forgot to quote the words before that.  I'm sure that it's a simple mistake and not part of your overall pattern of selective reading of nearly everything in order to misinterpret it in a way that benefits your argument.


The words before that are irrelevant, they describe a class of people that engage in the behavior he objects to, my point is that other also engage in that behavior.




> Then we should give people permanent residency instead of work visas so that they stay.


If there is room in this years quota of immigrants.




> Or do you genuinely believe that the people who are applying for work visas would refuse residency and citizenship?


Many would, in any case it doesn't matter, what matters is the yearly quota of immigrants.






> If he's wrong, why are you quoting him to bolster your argument?  Or is he just selectively wrong on the most important point, the ability of congress to regulate immigration, but correct when relating his personal opinions?


He is wrong about the Constitutional powers of Congress but the quote shows another example of the founders believing in immigration control.






> You are confused.
> 
> First, he never mentions Congress.
> 
> Second, he's talking about citizens and states who advocate profit and war, and his willingness to split from them rather than maintain the union at all costs.
> 
> Here is the next part:
> "Such is the position of our country. We have most abundant resources of happiness within ourselves, which we may enjoy in peace and safety, without permitting* a few citizens*, infected with the mania of rambling and gambling, to bring danger on the great mass engaged in innocent and safe pursuits at home. In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose: 1. licentious commerce, and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2. restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation, with the alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.' *I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture*."
> 
> ...


They were going to secede, after they did he intended to use immigration control to exclude them from the remaining states' territory.




> Thank you for finding this quote to support my argument.


It shows he was concerned about allowing in too many foreigners back then before the political gap grew even wider.

----------


## TheCount

> By comparison to modern times the difference was much smaller, the monarchies of the time intruded far less into their subjects lives than modern socialists do, ask R3v if you don't believe me.


That's not what Jefferson said. He said that nothing could be more opposed than a monarchy. It's your quote, not mine.






> The words before that are irrelevant


Of course.  Also the words after.  All words except the one sentence that, when read out of context and with a complete, blissful ignorance of history, vaguely agrees with you.





> If there is room in this years quota of immigrants.


A quota doesn't sound very merit-based.  I thought that you supported merit-based immigration.






> He is wrong about the Constitutional powers of Congress but the quote shows another example of the founders believing in immigration control.


I admire your ability to contradict yourself within the span of a single sentence.

Founders simultaneously believed in immigration control and the inability of Congress to control immigration?  Who, exactly, did they believe could control it then?






> They were going to secede, after they did he intended to use immigration control to exclude them from the remaining states' territory.


It doesn't say that anywhere.





> It shows he was concerned about allowing in too many foreigners back then before the political gap grew even wider.


If you could be bothered to read the letter rather than just one paragraph, you'll find that he supported immigration even though the immigrants were coming from countries with different political systems.  It is, like most of your quotes, arguing directly against the point that you are attempting to make.

Don't you ever wonder why the pages that you copy from provide you only a sliver of the whole writing?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That's not what Jefferson said. He said that nothing could be more opposed than a monarchy. It's your quote, not mine.


He never imagined that politics could become as warped as they did in modern times.








> Of course.  Also the words after.  All words except the one sentence that, when read out of context and with a complete, blissful ignorance of history, vaguely agrees with you.


He wasn't a class warrior who objected to merchants, he objected to a particular behavior, a behavior that other classes of people also engage in.






> A quota doesn't sound very merit-based.  I thought that you supported merit-based immigration.


Merit is how you determine who gets the quota slots.






> I admire your ability to contradict yourself within the span of a single sentence.
> 
> Founders simultaneously believed in immigration control and the inability of Congress to control immigration?  Who, exactly, did they believe could control it then?


He is wrong about the Constitutional powers of Congress but he believes immigration SHOULD be controlled.








> It doesn't say that anywhere.
> 
> 
> If you could be bothered to read the letter rather than just one paragraph, you'll find that he supported immigration even though the immigrants were coming from countries with different political systems.  It is, like most of your quotes, arguing directly against the point that you are attempting to make.
> 
> Don't you ever wonder why the pages that you copy from provide you only a sliver of the whole writing?


It is possible to support some immigration while still being concerned that it should be controlled to protect our liberty.

For some reason you never address this quote:

  “The   first consideration in immigration is the welfare of the receiving   nation. In a new government based on principles  unfamiliar to the rest   of the world and resting on the sentiments of  the people themselves,  the  influx of a large number of new immigrants  unaccustomed to the   government of a free society could be detrimental to that society.   Immigration, therefore, must be approached carefully and cautiously.”

Thomas Jefferson

----------


## Swordsmyth

"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

----------


## Swordsmyth

bump

----------


## johnwk

> If I walk across a line on a map to seek a job or to try to sell you something or to buy something from you, am I invading? Or do I need to have a gun?


When 20 million foreigners walk across that line and stay here, and breed like rats at the expense of American taxpaying Citizens, every thinking person would say that is an invasion which our federal government is charged with protecting us against.



JWK


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

----------


## Zippyjuan

> When 20 million foreigners walk across that line and stay here, and breed like rats at the expense of American taxpaying Citizens, every thinking person would say that is an invasion which our federal government is charged with protecting us against.
> 
> 
> 
> JWK


So let's get 20 million more police and military (More government! Yay!!!) and search every house and every business and check the papers of every citizen and non- citizen until we find every last one of them!  Then Liberty will be restored (or lost)!  What did you say your address was?  PS- we will need to increase your taxes to pay for it all.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> So let's get 20 million more police and military (More government! Yay!!!) and search every house and every business and check the papers of every citizen and non- citizen until we find every last one of them!  Then Liberty will be restored (or lost)!  What did you say your address was?  PS- we will need to increase your taxes to pay for it all.


Or we can have a proportional response.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> 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.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Or we can have a proportional response.


Are you suggesting even more police state?  Or is the problem not that bad?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Are you suggesting even more police state?  Or is the problem not that bad?


What do you think?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> What do you think?


More government! Yay!

----------


## Swordsmyth

> More government! Yay!


Of course YOU think that.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Of course YOU think that.


I did not think you would say it was the other option- that the problem wasn't that bad. Since you want more security at the border you favor more government spending.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I did not think you would say it was the other option- that the problem wasn't that bad.


It isn't bad enough to nuke Mexico either but that doesn't mean it isn't very bad.

----------


## osan

> Seems to me, somebody has been blurring the line between immigration and *illegal* immigration.   
> 
> So often, folks like to omit the *illegal* part of the later and call it all immigration.
> 
> One is like inviting someone to live with us and the other is just letting someone who broke in to live with us.


BINGO.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> BINGO.


Most of those presently here illegally came legally.  Should we search every business and household to try to find them and kick them out?  Maybe we could get some sort of national biometric ID card to root out the ones using fake IDs. Papers please!

----------


## osan

> Most of those presently here illegally came legally.  Should we search every business and household to try to find them and kick them out?  Maybe we could get some sort of national biometric ID card to root out the ones using fake IDs. Papers please!


Your point, atop your histrionic head notwithstanding, is taken.

Were the world different, I'd be on board.  It's not.  Welfare states attract vermin.  Powerful, wealthy lands in conflict with other nations, rightly or otherwise, are vulnerable through borders.  If one is serious about defense against malefactors coming across those borders, then he must control them.  These are just two of the $#@!ty realities of a world infested with insane people.  Half the world would like to eat us.  Maybe we deserve that sentiment, maybe not.  We either defend against those who would damage us or we lay down.  That is the positive reality we face.  Which would you rather?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Your point, atop your histrionic head notwithstanding, is taken.
> 
> Were the world different, I'd be on board.  It's not. * Welfare states attract vermin*.  Powerful, wealthy lands in conflict with other nations, rightly or otherwise, are vulnerable through borders.  If one is serious about defense against malefactors coming across those borders, then he must control them.  These are just two of the $#@!ty realities of a world infested with insane people.  Half the world would like to eat us.  Maybe we deserve that sentiment, maybe not.  We either defend against those who would damage us or we lay down.  That is the positive reality we face.  Which would you rather?


Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Federal forms of welfare- like food stamps, Medicare, and Social Security.   Legal immigrants are prohibited for their first five years in the country.   It is less of a draw than the opportunity to make a better life is.

----------


## osan

> Are you suggesting even more police state?


There is a fundamental difference between defense of the realm and police state, just as there is one between killing in self defense and murder.  The acts are superficially indistinguishable, one from the other.  But context is king.  I shoot the ghost from a man entering my home, uninvited, at 2 AM and I am golden.  I shoot the ghost from a man, take his wallet, car keys, and drive off with his Aston Martin, chances are I'm a murderer.

I believe a "proportional response" was called for, not "more police state".  You do this sort of strawman-ish thing a lot, leaving me wondering what is the deal.




> Or is the problem not that bad?


The "problem" is plenty bad, but I don't think it is nearly what you seem to think it is.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Federal forms of welfare- like food stamps, Medicare, and Social Security.   Legal immigrants are prohibited for their first five years in the country.   It is less of a draw than the opportunity to make a better life is.


People cheat and "refugees" get welfare immediately.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Most of those presently here illegally came legally.  Should we search every business and household to try to find them and kick them out?  Maybe we could get some sort of national biometric ID card to root out the ones using fake IDs. Papers please!


We don't have to turn into a police state to have enough enforcement to minimize the problem.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> There is a fundamental difference between defense of the realm and police state, just as there is one between killing in self defense and murder.  The acts are superficially indistinguishable, one from the other.  But context is king.  I shoot the ghost from a man entering my home, uninvited, at 2 AM and I am golden.  I shoot the ghost from a man, take his wallet, car keys, and drive off with his Aston Martin, chances are I'm a murderer.
> 
> I believe a "proportional response" was called for, not "more police state".  You do this sort of strawman-ish thing a lot, leaving me wondering what is the deal.
> 
> 
> 
> *The "problem" is plenty bad, but I don't think it is nearly what you seem to think it is.*


I live in a large border city with many immigrants and the busiest border crossing in the world.  

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb...forum-20120201




> "I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they're the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state," Paul told the group. "In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.
> 
> "Now there's a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants," he continued. "You say, no not immigrants, it's just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy."
> 
> Paul said he's not one of those politicians who believes that "barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems." That's not, he said, the American way. And he doesn't think that a national identification card is the way to go.

----------


## osan

> I live in a large border city with many immigrants and the busiest border crossing in the world.  
> 
> http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb...forum-20120201


OK, so quoting LA Time is even less credible that NY Times, much less The Enquirer, so you lose point on that bit.

There are valid reasons for defending a border.  Those who cannot or do not acknowledge this are either bereft of sufficient intellect or have unpublished agenda items.

Rumor has it there are 100K Chinese troops camped in the mountains of MX.  I have no idea whether this is true, but if we assume so for entertainment purposes, were tens of thousands of Chinese to begin pouring across the MX border, would you assert that we should simply allow them to pass, unchallenged?  Serious question to which I would like an actual answer and not some deflection.  Give it a whirl.

----------


## phill4paul

> OK, so quoting LA Time is even less credible that NY Times, much less The Enquirer, so you lose point on that bit.
> 
> There are valid reasons for defending a border.  Those who cannot or do not acknowledge this are either bereft of sufficient intellect or have unpublished agenda items.
> 
> Rumor has it there are 100K Chinese troops camped in the mountains of MX.  I have no idea whether this is true, but if we assume so for entertainment purposes, were tens of thousands of Chinese to begin pouring across the MX border, would you assert that we should simply allow them to pass, unchallenged?  Serious question to which I would like an actual answer and not some deflection.  Give it a whirl.


  Forget the Chinese. We already have middle-easterners crossing. From Yemen specifically. The country we are supporting the Sauds bombing the $#@! out of. 




> Jordanian Man Arrested for Smuggling Illegal Aliens From Yemen Across the U.S.-Mexico Border
> 
>    The Department of Justice announced Monday afternoon a Jordanian national has been arrested after allegedly smuggling a number of special interest illegal aliens from Yemen into the United States through the southern border with Mexico. Special interest aliens come from countries with ties to terrorism and pose a significant risk to the safety of Americans.
> 
> Moayad Heider Mohammad Aldairi, who lives in Mexico, was arrested at JFK airport in New York. Aldairi is accused of being paid in 2017 to work as a human smuggler and trafficking six illegal aliens into the U.S. through Texas. Accrording to prosecutors, Aldairi worked with others on the scheme.
> 
> Aldairi allegedly smuggled six Yemeni citizens across the Mexican border and into the United States, Assistant Attorney General Benczkowski released in a statement. Alien smuggling puts our national security at risk, and the Criminal Division is dedicated to enforcing our immigration laws and disrupting the flow of illegal aliens into the United States.


 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...order-n2505382

   Now, had these Yemeni caused some real civilian destruction in a shopping mall or amusement park I wonder if the open borders crowd would just shrug and say "We'll, that's the cost of freedom of travel."

----------


## Zippyjuan

> OK, so quoting LA Time is even less credible that NY Times, much less The Enquirer, so you lose point on that bit.
> 
> There are valid reasons for defending a border.  Those who cannot or do not acknowledge this are either bereft of sufficient intellect or have unpublished agenda items.
> 
> Rumor has it there are 100K Chinese troops camped in the mountains of MX.  I have no idea whether this is true, but if we assume so for entertainment purposes, were tens of thousands of Chinese to begin pouring across the MX border, would you assert that we should simply allow them to pass, unchallenged?  Serious question to which I would like an actual answer and not some deflection.  Give it a whirl.


The quote was Ron Paul.  I can find other publications quoting it if you like.  Tens of thousands of armed people are not the same as a handful of unarmed people looking for a better life (and I do not say we should allow all of them in- just that they are getting a very disproportional fear to any threat they actually pose).  

We do need to be afraid of somebody I suppose.  Politicians say we do and they promise to protect us from those if you vote for them. Fear is a very good motivator- works much better than logic.  I notice Trump has been pretty quiet on the topic since the election ended. On the campaign trail it was his #1 topic.  I wonder why he doesn't talk about it much now.  Perhaps it was less urgent than he tried to make it seem.  He doesn't have to scare the voters anymore.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The quote was Ron Paul.  I can find other publications quoting it if you like.  Tens of thousands of armed people are not the same as a handful of unarmed people looking for a better life (and I do not say we should allow all of them in- just that they are getting a very disproportional fear to any threat they actually pose).  
> 
> We do need to be afraid of somebody I suppose.  Politicians say we do and they promise to protect us from those if you vote for them. Fear is a very good motivator- works much better than logic.  I notice Trump has been pretty quiet on the topic since the election ended. On the campaign trail it was his #1 topic.  I wonder why he doesn't talk about it much now.  Perhaps it was less urgent than he tried to make it seem.  He doesn't have to scare the voters anymore.


A constant trickle of invaders is actually more deadly than a single army, if they came all at once or in a few large groups we would never have let 20+ Million of them in and nobody would be agitating to give them amnesty.

The caravans are a gamble to see if we have grown so stupid that they can start coming in ever larger numbers but they are failing because the large groups are waking people up to the threat.

----------


## osan

> The quote was Ron Paul.


I don't care if it was said by Jesus, hopping up and down with his hair on fire.  I respect Dr Paul much.  That doesn't mean I fall on my face, wailing "all HAIL!" every time his name is mentioned.  I reserve that for Peter Ross.  Look him up.




> Tens of thousands of armed people are not the same as...


Pity's sake man, use your imagination... those men would likely cross unarmed, pieemeal, only to be rearmed on OUR side of the border.  THINK, then type.

Weaponry could be easily arranged on the US side.  The weapons are not the primary concern, but rather the TRAINING and objectives pursuant to which said training has been undertaken.




> ...a handful of unarmed people looking for a better life


You're calling 10K people a handful?  Shirley you jest.

MX has offered them asylum.  They have mostly refused.  If a better life, free from whatever oppressions they purport to flee, has been made available and yet they refuse, I can only conclude that they are not nearly so dire of circumstance as someone, somewhere, is claiming.  When my parents came across the Austrian border, fleeing the Soviets and Hungarian secret police, they didn't make a fuss when they were placed in a refugee camp outside of Innsbruck.  They kissed the ground on which they trod, thankful to be free of the forces that would have seen them imprisoned or murdered.  I was there, though yet unborn, so you can say that I am a first hand witness to what it means to be an actual and true refugee of things that merit one's flight.

Now consider you this, Oh Juan!, and I suspect you've missed it: pray you tell us how, out of nowhere and so all of a suddenly, do ten thousands of people just come together by "coincidence" and decide to march their ways to America?  For one thing, there has been no news from their corner of the world indicating anything extraordinary is afoot there, politically speaking.  So the first question you should be asking yourself is "why?", or more particularly, "why _NOW?_"  Seriously now, ask yourself that question with the expectation of an answer.  

Now, having been intimately involved with statistics for about three millions of years, I have developed a fair to middling sense of the statistical nature of many things, including most of all, human behavior, which for the most part is almost perfectly predictable along certain lines of consideration.  Among those lines would be events such as that which we now see, ambling its way up the MX penninsula toward America the Beautiful.

Generally speaking, you can't get six people to agree on where to eat lunch.  How did ten thousand people agree to come to America all at once?  I cannot say how it has come to be, but I can tell you without equivocation how it didn't: by mere chance or circumstance.  Unless every news outlet on the planet is remaining silent WRT some major political  upheaval in Guatemala, Honduras, or both, there is nothing going on in those places worthy of note.  No mass incarcerations, disappearances, or what have you.  Life appears as normal.  Therefore, it would appear that the sudden congealing of ten thousand souls on the road to the USA represents a fourth-sigma statistical freak show occurrence.  So sorry pal, but that dog don't hunt; not for a second.

That means that those folks have been incentivized by other means.  THERE is your $64 question.  Who would endeavor to make it worthwhile to ten thousand people to _WALK_ all the way the hell from Honduras to the US border?  What would be the payoff for them?  Those are the questions that you should be asking yourself, if you are honest and diligent pursuant to knowing the truth.

There are several credible possibilities, but one that stands out to me is that of setting a precedent.  Consider for a moment how this little human caravan resembles those that cross Europe from the Middle East.  This one is far smaller, but that is an irrelevant detail, because what counts is the aforementioned precedent.  Once we officially say "OK, what the hell, you can come in without any scrutiny", which is _precisely_ that the "left" wants, the flood gates will then have to remain open in perpetuity, effectively eliminating the national boundaries of the United States.  Once opened, it will be nearly impossible to close them again without the concurrence of the international "community".  Why?  Because that is how things like this roll these days.  It has been what, nearly three years since Brexit, and UK is still bound to the EU, and that after having gone through the proper formalities.  There are no defined formalities for the American situation, meaning that the world can make noises from the point of closing our borders until the sun goes nova.  The troubles it would cause stand to be enormous, and that alone is all the reason we need to make sure the precedent is never set.  I am, in fact, rather surprised that Obama was not called to face this caravan, as I am pretty confident he would have laid down and opened his legs as he has done so many times in the past.  My only explanation is that Trump was truly unanticipated by Themme and perhaps it had been planned to have Hillary do the honors.  Being white and born in America, the same objections that would have been raised with Obama's having done so could not be raised with Clinton.  It's the only thing that makes sense to me, anyhow.




> (and I do not say we should allow all of them in- just that they are getting a very disproportional fear to any threat they actually pose).


THEY are not the actual threat, but rather the precedent, particularly given that the "left" wants every one of them admitted without challenge, including José Rosa Miguel Vaya Con Dios Marisol Duarte Nosotros Tenemos Las Ebolas Santiago Rodriguez who, as his majestic name suggests, is carrying hemorrhagic fever. For the idiots who compose the so-called "left", it's all good to let them in and RAYcis to turn away even a single soul, though he carry one of several forms of deadly contagion.

The loss of sovereignty, such as it may be, is the threat pal, not ten thousands of people of questionable motive and integrity.  Loss of effective sovereignty, even if only in a comparatively small nibble, is the threat America faces through the loss of our prerogatives to decide who comes in and who remains at the door.  Screw that noise.

I would also point out that if the abstract constructs of nationality can be defeated in this manner, then so can the more tangible ones of individual claims.  Giving in to the demands of those who would see America destroyed, whether through direct and intentional malice or simply the ill results of well intended ignorance, is potentially tantamount to renouncing the individual's fundamental rights.  It is a VERY short step from "nation" to "individual" in this instance.  You and the rest of the people here who are so eager to dismantle "the state" from one minute to the next, need to take a moment to step back and reconsider the practical implications of your lust.  I am 100% in favor of autodiathism, the central column upon which anarchy rests.  But it is not even remotely possible to achieve such an enlightened state of existence from out current fare through sudden means, barring a reset event, which puts all bets off.

The world is hella pooched at this time, the minds of most men poisoned with the most deeply toxic fallacies and lies imaginable.  One doesn't just come to clarity from one second to the next - not often anyhow.  Therefore, the only means of getting to a better state of mind comes only with time and an implacable determination that drives constant pressure in a given direction.  We see this today with the "left".  They have been at it for 100 years and have done a fabulous job of corrupting each new generation.  Unless they really blow it big time, those coming up as toddlers today will be so corrupted with false beliefs - those that destroy rather than affirm life - that we the old farts will not recognize them as human and will therefore be glad to shed our respective coils in escape from the bowels of this monster some of us refer to as the "prison planet".

Make no mistake - the "left" is going to win almost certainly.  Why?  Because they have entropy on their side, especially that of attitude.  Why work diligently when the man over there, the _authority_, tells me it's OK to be slacker?  And is it not ever so easy to accept those as authorities who tell us the things that we think will make us happy?  Something for nothing.  No need to work.  Don't worry, be happy.  Oh _$#@! IT._  Time to get laid... and so on down the line?

Let us also not forget the Brain, whose goal is to take over the world.  The Brain no longer denies this objective publicly, but trumpets it proudly enough to the deaf ears of a public not wanting to hear, or no longer caring.  Pursuant to that goal is the necessary step of the dissolution of independent sovereign states, not to mention the mongrelization of their populations pursuant to the destruction of the respective national cultures and with that, the identities of a people _AS_ a people, thereby weakening the whole to the point it no longer exists effectively as such, but is nothing more than a conglomeration of individuals with no real sense of identity, thereby rendering the mass eminently and easily manipulable.





> We do need to be afraid of somebody I suppose.  Politicians say we do and they promise to protect us from those if you vote for them.


This is a valid point, but it cuts all ways, which you have failed to acknowledge.  Bad Juan.  Bad, BAD Juan.  No soup for you!

Similarly, spouting what you have spewed here can also mislead people into a false sense of "don't worry, be happy".

*FAIL*




> Fear is a very good motivator- works much better than logic.


True, and it is often valid.  Other times, it is not.  Here you are attempting to imply the latter when in fact it is likely you have no idea whether it is so.

The likely case is that none of us know the deeper truths.  I am certain we are being manipulated by all sides, but the questions of degree, motivation, and who is telling the greater net truth remains occluded.  Therefore, your post fails the smell test every bit as much as do those items of which you have written here.

But one thing I feel is nearly certain: our national identity, right or wrong, is being challenged in a most deep manner with this little inorganic stunt.  Once gone, it will not be returning any time soon.  Curse nationalism if it pleases you, but it is not inherently evil, but only when taken too far, which is admittedly often the case.  But just because the bathwater has gone fetid with too many bodies in it, one does not toss the infant out the window along with it, eh? 

Simplistic solutions are no solutions at all.



*ETA:*  Whence the sustenance of these intrepid caravaners?  Water?  Food?  Showers?  Etc.?  My understanding is that they are po' folk sans pot in which to pee.  So how, then, are they surviving for months as they trek across the desert and through the grim Sonora to America?  SOMEONE is paying for their provisions.  One doesn't carry months worth of provisions on their backs for five seconds, much less months, while trudging ever northward.

So who, exactly, is footing this bill?  Oh, and why, if these people are so abused, do so many of them have cell phones?  Whence the funding for months of continued cell service?  Or have AT&T and Verizon gone soft?

Questions.  Many many questions, and no clear answers.

Your apparent position on this matter, it would seem, needs much reconsideration.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Bump

----------


## 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.


...

----------


## Swordsmyth

> "[N]o  endeavor should be spared to detect and suppress (the immigrant who  would cause) the fraudulent usurpation of our flag; an abuse which  brings so much embarrassment and loss on the genuine citizen, and so  much danger to the nation of being involved in war" - "The Writings of  Thomas Jefferson," Volume 3, p. 338
> 
> To parse Jefferson's 19th century legalese here:
> 
> "The government should spare no expense to prohibit immigrants would  turn the country upside down, promote internal warfare and cause damage  to the native citizens."


...

----------


## Swordsmyth

*I have taken the term of four millions and a half of inhabitants for  example's sake only.  Yet I am persuaded it is a greater number than the  country spoken of, considering how much inarrable land it contains, can  clothe and feed, without a material change in the quality of their  diet.  But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale  against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the  importation of foreigners?  It is for the happiness of those united in  society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of  necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of  forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common  consent.  Every species of government has its specific principles.  Ours  perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe.  It  is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution,  with others derived from natural right and natural reason.  To these  nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet,  from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. 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  numbers, 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.  I may appeal to experience,  during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures.   But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they  not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three  months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired,  or expected?  May not our government be more homogeneous, more  peaceable, more durable?  Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans  thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that  kingdom?  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.  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.  I  mean not that these doubts should be extended to the importation of  useful artificers.  The policy of that measure depends on very different  considerations.  Spare no expence in obtaining them.  They will after a  while go to the plough and the hoe; but, in the mean time, they will  teach us something we do not know.  It is not so in agriculture.  The  indifferent state of that among us does not proceed from a want of  knowledge merely; it is from our having such quantities of land to waste  as we please.  In Europe the object is to make the most of their land,  labour being abundant: here it is to make the most of our labour, land  being abundant.* 

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/jefferson/ch08.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

...



> *The Posse Comitatus Act does not prohibit US Military on our borders.*
> 
> 
> *US Military is allowed as authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress       * 
> *This is from Carlton Meyer’s new book:  The Spectrum of Future Warfare.* 
> http://www.g2mil.com/border.htm
> *Myth #1** The US Constitution prohibits posting US troops on the border.*
> *The US Constitution says no such thing.  In fact, Article IV states:*  
> *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.   * 
> ...

----------


## Swordsmyth

...




> From the very beginning, from before there *was*  a United States, you were required to join a church, register your  family name and everybody in your family and apply for "freeman" papers,  when arriving the colonies. 
> 
> 
> The dates in May of 1634 and 1636 are chosen
> because of some features of the migration process. Most passenger ships
> did not leave England until spring, because of the bad weather in the
> North Atlantic earlier in the year. Thus it would be impossible for a
> passenger on one of these ships to have joined a church and then applied
> for freemanship in time for the annual General Court of Election, which
> ...

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Ron Paul's position from 2007:
> 
> *The talk must stop. We must secure our borders  now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no  sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left  unlocked. This is my six point plan:*
> 
> *Physically secure our borders and  coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our  country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.**Enforce  visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport  anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is  especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had  expired visas.**No amnesty.  Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country  illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.**No  welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek  opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not  pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads,  and social services.**End  birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their  children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S.  illegally will remain strong.**Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million  more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation.  This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the  same rules and waiting periods.*
> 
> 
> http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


...

----------


## Swordsmyth

http://archive.is/HW9aj

MR.   RUSSERT:  You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution,   and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born   here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL:  Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional.  What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT:  So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL:    Well, that's constitutional, to do it.  Besides, it was the 14th   Amendment.  It wasn't in the original Constitution.  And there's a,   there's a confusion on interpretation.  In the early years, it was never   interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because   people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if   they're under the jurisdiction of the government.  And somebody who   illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the   jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's   awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill   to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

----------


## Swordsmyth



----------

