alt-right racism is Ron Paul's fault (Salon article)

[osan]

There's NO authority to regulate immigration.

Your statement ignores context.

In the normatively proper world, you are correct.

In a world poisoned with the filth of inept/malevolent governmental interferences that give rise to welfare states, such authority arises implicitly because people retain the right to protect themselves against the sorts of results as those under which we currently suffer.

And in the even broader context of a world polluted with cancerous Empire, which in turn has given rise to the avarice of "rival" nations who would have us as their property in one manner or another, the same right to self-preservation arises with great vigor. Like it or not, we the people of this world are partitioned, and some partitions are demonstrably better than others. Regardless, the people of any given region may validly act to defend themselves against the threats they perceive as issuing from those of another. Even the ham-fisted Red Chinese and the blithering Soviets retained the right to defend themselves against competing political systems, regardless of how much "better" those rivals may have been, as judged by a given objective standard.

Put more than one person into a room and politics arise. This is the mean observable habit of humans as they currently tend to comport themselves. Politics tends to give rise to problems, real or imagined, against which people feel the need to take defensive measures. That is the reality of the twenty-first century human animal, and so long as people feel threatened, they rightly exercise their inborn authority to act. That such action has given rise to such vast tragedy worldwide, it does not follow that the stated authority does not exist, but only that it is misapplied; further testament to the pathological state of mean human perception, as shaped under the influences of the cancerous condition of Empire.

If some immigrant (after many years living here) wishes to become a "citizen" then and only then does the constitution have anything to say about this immigrant. If you don't believe me you can check any history book on life in the 1800's...

Again, this is valid only in the proper context. Alter that fundamentally, as the reality of a welfare state has, and all bets are off. I deplore this truth, but there it stands, naked, ugly, and smelling as foully as anyone might ever imagine.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You will find no mention of regulating immigration within that document and indeed this whole idea of regulation is maybe 100 years old or so.
...
And if I'm wrong, please enlighten me...

OK, if you insist. Please understand: I'm not trying to convince you. But I kind of regret putting this viral talking point out there about the Constitution that so many have taken up. I have since taken a hiatus from debating immigration, but by leaving the debate stand as it is, I may have given disproportionate ammo to one side and not the other.

So, to even the playing field a little, as well as to give a more balanced and truthful perspective on the Founder's views and the situation in Early America:

Actually, the fact of the matter is that very early in American history, in fact almost immediately after the Revolution was won some of the first laws that were passed were laws restricting immigrants. They restricted naturalization to people of sound moral character, means to provide for themselves, etc., and of course excluded all the various and sundry races of the world other than whites. Many of the states (perhaps all?) passed laws also forbidding anyone who fled (as what we would perhaps call a "refugee") during the war from ever coming back. Basically: "You wanted to go hide in Canada? You can stay there! Enjoy the snow!"

Congress passed -- and passed it unanimously! -- this resolution: "Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby, recommended to the several states to pass laws for preventing the transportation of convicted malefactors from foreign countries into the United States." In the vernacular of today: "They're not sending their best. We're getting their murderers, their rapists. Out! Out! Out!"

In fact, even before -- and even long before -- the Revolution, the colonies were passing and enforcing many laws restricting, forbidding, and limiting immigration in various ways. The Pilgrims themselves, in 1639, passed a law forbidding the arrival of foreign paupers, charging any shipmasters who tried to bring them hefty fines, and of course expelling any paupers who somehow did make it or who were already there. No paupers. The pilgrims were, by today's standards, roughly millionaires (it cost about a million just to ride the boat, inflation-adjusted), and they didn't need any poor, any hungry, any losers. Didn't want 'em, wouldn't take 'em. People of means (upper-class) only.

There are many other examples of laws restricting immigration I could put here, but at some point it would perhaps start to tilt the debate too far the other direction. So suffice it to say that there were many, many laws restricting and forbidding immigration in the early days of this Land of the Free, America, made with the intent of keeping it the Land of the Free. And, in my opinion, they were either all or almost all Constitutional. Obviously in the opinions of those who wrote the Constitution also, as well as those who fought and risked their lives for Independence, who are perhaps even more credible. If they didn't know what they were fighting for, then who knows better?

Hopefully this post has helped to impart a more balanced and truthful perspective.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

OK, if you insist. Please understand: I'm not trying to convince you. But I kind of regret putting this viral talking point out there about the Constitution that so many have taken up. I have since taken a hiatus from debating immigration, but by leaving the debate stand as it is, I may have given disproportionate ammo to one side and not the other.

So, to even the playing field a little, as well as to give a more balanced and truthful perspective on the Founder's views and the situation in Early America:

Actually, the fact of the matter is that very early in American history, in fact almost immediately after the Revolution was won some of the first laws that were passed were laws restricting immigrants. They restricted naturalization to people of sound moral character, means to provide for themselves, etc., and of course excluded all the various and sundry races of the world other than whites. Many of the states (perhaps all?) passed laws also forbidding anyone who fled (as what we would perhaps call a "refugee") during the war from ever coming back. Basically: "You wanted to go hide in Canada? You can stay there! Enjoy the snow!"

Congress passed -- and passed it unanimously! -- this resolution: "Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby, recommended to the several states to pass laws for preventing the transportation of convicted malefactors from foreign countries into the United States." In the vernacular of today: "They're not sending their best. We're getting their murderers, their rapists. Out! Out! Out!"

In fact, even before -- and even long before -- the Revolution, the colonies were passing and enforcing many laws restricting, forbidding, and limiting immigration in various ways. The Pilgrims themselves, in 1639, passed a law forbidding the arrival of foreign paupers, charging any shipmasters who tried to bring them hefty fines, and of course expelling any paupers who somehow did make it or who were already there. No paupers. The pilgrims were, by today's standards, roughly millionaires (it cost about a million just to ride the boat, inflation-adjusted), and they didn't need any poor, any hungry, any losers. Didn't want 'em, wouldn't take 'em. People of means (upper-class) only.

There are many other examples of laws restricting immigration I could put here, but at some point it would perhaps start to tilt the debate too far the other direction. So suffice it to say that there were many, many laws restricting and forbidding immigration in the early days of this Land of the Free, America, made with the intent of keeping it the Land of the Free. And, in my opinion, they were either all or almost all Constitutional. Obviously in the opinions of those who wrote the Constitution also, as well as those who fought and risked their lives for Independence, who are perhaps even more credible. If they didn't know what they were fighting for, then who knows better?

Hopefully this post has helped to impart a more balanced and truthful perspective.

So what you are saying is that congress started passing laws that are not authorized by the constitution right away... I think we already knew that. Most of the laws congress passes are not "authorized" by the constitution. I thought that's why we are all "Ron Paul" people here-because we get this one simple fact.

No, nothing in your examples (and I guarantee even I could find many more of them) disputes the fact that the constitution does not authorize restriction on immigration. Chapter and verse please...

 

[helmuth_hubener]

So what you are saying is that congress started passing laws that are not authorized by the constitution right away... I think we already knew that.

Some that were, some that weren't, but you are glossing over the fact that it was mostly states passing immigration laws. The states.

No, nothing in your examples disputes the fact that the Constitution

Yeah, not a coincidence nor oversight! What I was "disputing" (really just clearing up, with the truth) was your statement that: "this whole idea of regulation is maybe 100 years old or so." That's all!

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Some that were, some that weren't, but you are glossing over the fact that it was mostly states passing immigration laws. The states.

Yeah, not a coincidence nor oversight! What I was "disputing" (really just clearing up, with the truth) was your statement that: "this whole idea of regulation is maybe 100 years old or so." That's all!

Oh, if that' all you are trying to dispute is that "regulation" is maybe 100 years old" being incorrect then I will give you that point as that was simple an estimate and certainly NOT my primary premise. It's obvious that you cannot dispute the primary premise (as I know you cannot).

The primary premise (in case you missed it way back there) was that the "constitution" does not authorize it. That much is a given fact...