Conservative Hypocrisy

From the comments:

“I gotta say though, Larken is the most predictable youtuber out there: whenever there's a new video coming out, we all know exactly what his position is going to be, only by looking at the title and without even watching it. And that is because he's sticking to his principles, no matter what. That deserves thumbs up”

You gotta love it.
 

July 26, 2024

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EItuGlcFPmc

This video is a test, of sorts, to see if conservatives will do exactly what liberals do, when THEIR favorite unconstitutional, authoritarian bullpoop (e.g., "Muh borders!") is challenged. Commence excuse-making!​


Utter nonsense.

A1S8

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

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.

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.


Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government


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

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.





"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

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



"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

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


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)

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

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.

High Misdemeanor=Impeachable offense.

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

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

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


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:



  • [*=left]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.
    [*=left]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.
    [*=left]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.
    [*=left]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.
    [*=left]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.
    [*=left]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
 
Rules of Naturalization include who and how many people may naturalize.

The Law of Nations encompasses granting or refusing permission to enter.

Jefferson wrote about excluding those who would harm our society and liberty.

Madison says that the power to prohibit migration includes foreign undesirables.

Burke says that allowing in undesirables is an impeachable offense.

Ron always recognized the power to control the borders and the necessity of it.


You are pushing globalist lies.
 
From the comments:

“I gotta say though, Larken is the most predictable youtuber out there: whenever there's a new video coming out, we all know exactly what his position is going to be, only by looking at the title and without even watching it. And that is because he's sticking to his principles, no matter what. That deserves thumbs up”

You gotta love it.

Sticking to well worn lies.
 

IMG_2642.jpeg
 
.
.
Thread: Lawmakers Push Pentagon for Clarity on Domestic Military Deployments



By Leo Shane III
Aug 15, 2024


A pair of Democratic lawmakers are asking senior defense leaders to clarify the rules for deploying military personnel on U.S. soil amid increasing political rhetoric about changing such restrictions so that units can respond to immigration or protest problems.

In a Wednesday letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. C.Q. Brown, the representatives — Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey — asked the leaders to clearly and publicly explain the limits of military use for domestic issues, calling it a matter “essential to maintaining our democracy” in the near future.

“We feel compelled to look ahead to decisions that you, as the most senior defense officials, may be called upon to make in the next six months,” the pair wrote. “These decisions will fall squarely into the constitutional roles that you swore to uphold and we know you both respect. We are relying on you to preserve the system that our Founding Fathers designed.”

In their letter, Slotkin and Sherrill — a former Navy pilot — asked the military leaders for public assurances that the limits on domestic use of military forces are still in effect, and that federal laws prohibit any president from ordering troops to circumvent those rules for political purposes.

They also asked for assurances from the Pentagon leaders that “if a President were to issue such an [unlawful] order, you would refuse to carry out the order.”

Defense Department officials declined comment on the letter but said they would follow up directly with the two congressional offices.

What the military can and cannot do on American soil has been a friction point among Republicans and Democrats in recent years, particularly concerning comments from Donald Trump during and after his presidency.

Trump has suggested he would use active-duty troops and guardsmen in the deportation of immigrants from America, and said the military could be used as a domestic police force to respond to urban violence or public protests.

In addition, officials with the Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project — which Trump has sought to distance himself from, despite having numerous connections to organizers — have suggested that the next president could deploy military personnel to fill domestic law enforcement roles across the country as he or she sees fit.

The Posse Comitatus Act currently prohibits federal military forces from such domestic law enforcement work unless the president invokes emergency powers. It does not limit state governor’s ability to deploy National Guard troops from responding to local emergencies, such as natural disasters or riots.



https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...for-clarity-on-domestic-military-deployments/

 
Utter nonsense.

A1S8

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

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.

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.


Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government


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

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.






"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

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



"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
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


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)

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

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.

High Misdemeanor=Impeachable offense.

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

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

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


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:



  • [*=left]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.
    [*=left]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.
    [*=left]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.
    [*=left]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.
    [*=left]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.
    [*=left]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

Rules of Naturalization include who and how many people may naturalize.

The Law of Nations encompasses granting or refusing permission to enter.

Jefferson wrote about excluding those who would harm our society and liberty.

Madison says that the power to prohibit migration includes foreign undesirables.

Burke says that allowing in undesirables is an impeachable offense.

Ron always recognized the power to control the borders and the necessity of it.


You are pushing globalist lies.

Notice how they won't deal with the proof they are lying.
 
"...solid, intelligent, pragmatic and emotionally disconnected..." -- Conservative Treehouse damning Trump's transition team with faint praise

Are they talking about this Howard Lutnick, of 9/11 fame and Epstein's next door neighbor? 15:00, 29:30, 42:20, 46:36

 
Interesting excuse for quoting your own walls of text.

Who was proved to be lying about what, again?


That Wall of text looks like another statist Omnibus that they support. You have to connect this to that, to the other thing, while referring to something else, and cross referencing to that over there. So I didn't bother to read it :tears:

All I want is my individual freedom. And not spend more nickels.
 
At this point I'd be pretty impressed with a president whose crony list bore no relation to Epstein's client list.

When the R's and the D's met behind closed doors and agreed to never allow that to happen, they smiled to each other and shook hands on the way out. But at least they were nice enough to allow the People a "choice". Because, after all, that's what makes people happy.

Though I disagree with his domestic policies, to have an attorney who knows the gig and speaks out against it... too many jobs would be at stake.
 
Tom Wolfe wrote an interesting novel called The Bonfire of the Vanities. This whole young millennium has been the Bonfire of the Hypocrisies. It's like the devil created two herds if hypocrites and is saying, If you aren't one of these kinds of hypocrite or the other, you won't be safe!"

I guess that's one way to harvest souls.
 
Last edited:
Interesting excuse for quoting your own walls of text.

Who was proved to be lying about what, again?

That Wall of text looks like another statist Omnibus that they support. You have to connect this to that, to the other thing, while referring to something else, and cross referencing to that over there. So I didn't bother to read it :tears:

All I want is my individual freedom. And not spend more nickels.

You guys post a video that lies and claims the Federal government never had the power to control the border.
I post the proof that it absolutely does have the power in the Constitution to control the border and the founders and everyone else said so.
Just to accommodate those with the attention span of a gnat I also post a shorter summary.

You guys: :seenoevil::hearnoevil:
 
You guys post a video...

It takes a strong desire to collectivize the snot out of literally everyone to imagine that I flew halfway across the country to help him post a link to a video.

...lies and claims the Federal government never had the power to control the border.
I post the proof that it absolutely does have the power in the Constitution to control the border and the founders and everyone else said so.

That's not proof of anything, it's a collection of opinions. And the only opinion in it that's logically not impeachable is Ron Paul saying to stop drawing them by ending the welfare state -- an even greater imperative now that the welfare state is recruiting and importing them. Which seems to be too logical a first step for you -- you won't rest until we're all caught in the crossfire between federal agents doing what the multinationals want done and federal agents doing our bidding.

You guys: :seenoevil::hearnoevil:

Not true, and here's the proof: You say evil things, but we don't have you on ignore.
 
I RARELY agree with [MENTION=65299]Swordsmyth[/MENTION], but this time he's actually right. I always thought about Article I section 9 as dealing with the importation of slaves. But it clearly talks about migration and importation. And going all the way back to prior to the U.S. Civil War it was applied to immigration.

https://cis.org/Report/Public-Charge-Doctrine-Fundamental-Principle-American-Immigration-Policy

With ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the federal government gained a role in immigration policy. Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 states that the federal government would take control over immigration beginning in 1808. States continued to strengthen their own public charge laws after that time. This state role apparently was understood to be in accord with the Constitution. States retained jurisdiction over the allocation of their own public resources and control over their own populations. For example, in 1827, New York passed a law that imposed a fine on anyone who brought into the state a "poor or indigent person, not having legal settlement therein."16

A federal-state confrontation regarding immigration policy, and public charge doctrine in particular, occurred over a "head tax" levied on immigrants. In 1849, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned New York and Massachusetts head taxes as unconstitutional. These states had charged able-bodied immigrant arrivals the head taxes, which were to meet the public relief costs imposed by immigrant paupers.17 Nevertheless, Congress and the states concurrently acted within their respective jurisdictions, each legislating to control immigration throughout much of the 19th century. But in 1883, the Supreme Court struck down New York's final attempt to craft a law that complied with the earlier decision. That ruling prohibited states from raising funds for public assistance from an immigrant tax and left the regulation of immigration to Congress.

This is quite different from the 2nd Amendment which, after mentioning the militia, goes on to say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Those who argue that the militia clause was about the right of the states have to do mental gymnastics to overcome the amendment saying the right of the people keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as opposed to saying "the right of the states to arm their people shall not be infringed."

Now one can argue that giving the Federal government the power to control people moving across a border is or is not a good thing just like most people ultimately came to the conclusion that the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution (Article IV Section 2) was not a good idea, but that's different from saying this is a power the Federal government never had.
 
Last edited:
Now one can argue that giving the Federal government the power to control people moving across a border is or is not a good thing just like in the most people ultimately came to the conclusion that the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution (Article IV Section 2) was not a good idea, but that's different from saying this is a power the Federal government never had.

Good God. You addressed the topic logically without resorting to spamming walls of text not entirely pertinent to the topic, accusing people of things or using guilt by association.

It's amazing how much more effective your tactics are.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top