The lies right before you
Immigration, specifically, what's called illegal immigration, has been and continues to be a hot button topic for certain people. In a different thread, I pointed out something I'd like to share with a broader audience in hopes of discussing the matter a bit further.
If, as is stated in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, Congress shall make no law respecting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble. Where's the part in the US Constitution that restricts where those people I wish to assemble with are from? Furthermore, even if such a part of the US Constitution were to exist, wouldn't that mean that 'the people' don't have any right to assemble with other people except as permitted by the government, making the part of the 1st Amendment I posted above nothing more than an outright lie? After all, if government declares it can tell me with whom I am legally allowed to associate, isn't that directly contradictory to the 1st Amendment?
It's truth is right before you. It always has been, and will continue to be. Will you see it? Or will you continue to believe the lies?
How do we solve this riddle?
Article 1
Section 8
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
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, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars {half ounce of gold?) for each Person.
Visitation, naturalization and exportation seem to be the three issues at hand under Section 8 since this is later than 1808.
There is the troubling US intervention into Central America and beyond. I do not understand the issues though there are histories that speak poorly of US behavior. The testimony of Major General Smedley Butler is one. Iran-Contra and the School of the Americas are others not to mention the so-called war on drugs.
Why is everything a war, a battle, a flaming sword that smites or a bribe, a payoff, a cheating deal? Foreign diplomacy with carrot and stick. Why not honesty and principle. How has this failed to be our way?
How do we solve this riddle? Certainly voluntary charity would allow those who would donate to the cause. yet those deemed illegally present by Congress and due process are subject to our law.
All for freedom? Freedom for all!
Free includes debt-free!
Property
It seems that many "libertarians" here are not familiar with the homestead principle. Whoever owns the property gets to decide who is allowed on their property. The government doesn't own your property because the government hasn't homesteaded it, or voluntarily exchanged for it. Therefore the government doesn't get to decide who is allowed on your property.
Rothbard:
The right of every individual to own his person and the property that he has found and transformed, and therefore “created,” and the property which he has acquired either as gifts from or in voluntary exchange with other such transformers or “producers.”
…[T]he basic principle: that all resources, all goods, in a state of no-ownership belong properly to the first person who finds and transforms them into a useful good (the “homestead” principle).
…[I]n the case of unused land and natural resources: the first to find and mix his labor with them, to possess and use them, “produces” them and becomes their legitimate property owner.
Yeah, yeah: property laws are neato until they come in with guns
Then you know who owns what.
You may freely associate.
However, committing property crimes may restrict certain freedoms from the perpetrator, and entering the country illegally is trespass,which is a property crime.
In that case, deportation is warranted, since there is no "right" to trespass.
It's clearly posted, guarded, and it is a willful trespass to enter without permission of the person or people who own the property you trespass on.
And that's a crime under any kind of law you want to name.
There are no rights to violate property.
If I post "no tresspassing" on my property, any tresspassers may be duly removed.
And since property "owned" by the gov'ts is owned, in essence, by the citizens in a general sense, it is a crime of property to violate the posted border.
That's my take.
Do 'the feds' own my property? Or do I?
Furthermore, if I'm a 'citizen' and 'taxpayer', I too own that border and 'public' property you refer to. What if I want people who wish to come onto 'my' property to do so? I don't see them as trespassing, so there's no crime.
See the problem with that? Also, do you see the contradiction that I pointed out?
Unless you have a Star Trek Transporter
Illegals have trespassed to get to your property... their just being at your place is evidence of said trespass.
trespassed?
Whose property have they trespassed? The government doesn't own the land that they walked across on.
If they walked across private property, then how do you know if the property owner denied consent to walk across it?
This isn't about my proving anything
Unless the illegals requested permission to be on every swinging dude's land along the way to your asylum, they are trespassers.
Do you think I'm stupid enough to think they did get that permission?
This is about SELF-GOVERNENCE, not violations of code, statute or law.
The problem the illegal-lovers have is their lack of integrity.
You will hide behind "prove they trespassed" to another citizen... knowing full well they indeed are are criminals.
It is Leftist thinking - so very much akin to the Socialists in power today.
trespassing
No. If the property owner finds out, after the fact, that someone walked across their grass, and they don’t care, then it is not trespassing. If they do care, then it is trespassing, and what’s the penalty for walking across someone’s property?
What if you walked across someone’s property and the owner said to you “get out of my country” instead of saying “get off my property”?
untrue
trespass:
a wrongful entry upon the lands of another.
whether or not one cares after the fact doesn't change the illegality of the action
As far as charges for trespass, they can be summary, midemeanor or even felonious.
Which should trump which, property ownership rights, or the rights of illegals to hang with you and none?
If illegals should be afforded the same rights as Americans, then you are falling into the trap that the globalists adhere to... there can be no moral distinction between "rights" of citizenry of another country - the illogical conclusion to this illogical thinking is the removal of sovereign governments to help the people of those lands practise the "right" to vote...
In the same vein, aren't the rights of Americans hindered by the illegals streaming across the border? The monies that is used to provide healthcare, schooling, etc, for illegals is stolen from Americans via taxation - or - by increases in the costs in services for people that can pay.
Allowing a free stream of interlopers is the polar opposite to Constitutional Government.
Bingo!
It’s wrongful only if there is no consent. If there is consent, then there is no victim, so there is no crime.
Bingo! I was waiting for you to figure it out. The problem is not people coming here. The problem is the theft that’s occurring. Who is doing the stealing? It’s not the “illegals”.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with people living on unowned land, or obtaining consent to live on private property.
BINGO!
So you will admit, then, that illegals are trespassers... as they have not entered the LANDS of this country in the correct manner...
You admit that, don't you?
It's a cart/horse thing... monies are being stolen and given for the benefit of TRESPASSERS in this country. I never said that ONLY the monies being used for their benefit is wrong - but cutting waste should begin with the TRESPASSERS.
This thread isn't about folks living on BLM - or other unowned land... or who obtains consent to live on private property... it's about the mentality that somehow TRESPASSING is okay... illegal aliens are just that.
Whether you and none like it or not, this is not a land built on anarchical principles... it is a land built on contract and the rule of law... and, again, whether you like it or not, the Law of the Land is that folks entering the borders of these Several States will do so in the proper fashion. Once they enter legally, they are just about as free as the Birthright Citizen.
Please stop referring to humans as illegal.
And there is no such thing as 'rule of law'. Laws do not write themselves, people write them. And history has shown time and time and time again how those who write the laws do so overwhelmingly for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else.
Are you seeking liberty, or are you simply looking for new masters that you approve of to write and impose the laws you favor?
Perhaps "CRIMINALS" should be a better term?
I don't understand how you could think that there is no such thing as 'rule of law'... Whether you like it or not, this nation was designed to be a Constitutional Republic.... not some anarchic wasteland like in the Mad Max movies.
ILLEGALS ARE TRESPASSERS AND CRIMINALS
Are you seeking Liberty or Anarchy?
I'm thinking the latter.
Anarchy is liberty and people write the laws
I'll file you in with the rest of the people looking for new masters with rules you approve of.
You're incorrect, AGAIN
anarchy = a state of society without government or law.
liberty = freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
none = FAIL
I hear you
And I do agree with the philosophical point. There is a very real practical matter at hand, and that is getting enough people to understand to take action. Now, "amnesty" is NOT really the problem, but using it to swell the roles of entitlement programs to deliberately crash the economy is a very real problem. To try to get Joe Shleeple up to speed in one move is setting the bar to high and so the "amnesty" issue is a BABY step toward getting the people to wake up.
Personally, I believe we need to EMBRACE "One World Government." One world governed by a mass of sovereign individuals, monarchs one and all. It is the way we take their weapon and turn it on them. Watch me get trashed for not being a "Patriot" now.
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
that sounds about right
except clarify what do you mean about using the amnesty issue as a baby step though? Not sure what direction you're going with that
I like the idea of a One world government council of 7 billion monarchs. :)
People who see amnesty as a problem
have awakened to a TINY bit of truth. "Open borders" with a government offering entitlements will not work. So you talk to them where they are awake, and then listen for any other topics where they might be a little awake, and then if you are lucky, they will get to the spot where they say "But you know what I can't figure out?" or "It just does not make sense when they do..." and there is your opening. You give them some piece of information they did NOT have before (and sources!) and then when you work your way back to the amnesty topic, you have some credibility to try to take them to the next level of truth there.
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
Interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ
Am I missing something? I think the only thing I am missing is that feel good feeling for helping the globes .00001% of impoverished, and to think it will only cost my children and grandchildren their nations natural resources and heritage thorugh political correctness, what a bargain.
In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
~Mark Twain
Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, and set those BRUSH FIRES everywhere you go and in all you do!
ultimately you're right
presently it's the wrong jenga piece to pull at the moment. Pulling it now, ie eliminating borders and imigration laws, would bring the whole country down overloading the system as they do not pay for the amenities our taxes provide for them.
If you're talking about a complete and immediate overhall to a perfect free utopian society, then I'm fine with no borders.
If you're talking about incremental progress towards liberty, opening the borders and laxing immigration laws will have to come after we get rid of all the unconstitutional welfare and public services we're forced to pay for or we'll need to devise a way where they would pay their fair share until that time.
Who would have guessed it?
The troll that wants to see the constitution burn. Of course he would put something like this up. It's like his calling card.
Burn, no!
I think the US Constitution is an important historical relic. Burning it would be entirely inappropriate. I think it's important to preserve it for the progeny of people today to look back upon and see how men used words to try control and exploit them.
Troll? Hardly. I've been around for quite a while here and it was as a result of DR Paul's presidential campaign I came to understand exactly what liberty means.
If you can't even think of a way to spin an obvious contradiction other than to resort to the simplest minded of internet ad-hominems, what does that tell you about your argument?
People like you who claim to be seeking liberty
Really ought to pay attention to the bullshit used to fool you.
What's stupid is dismissing an obvious contradiction.
The Constitution never mentions immigration
And the founders only dealt with naturalization laws.
I wish Mexico felt the same way as you, I'd be able to drive through it.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
Read the 1964 civil rights act. No one gained any rights only
property owners irregardless of race ,creed or religion lost their rights of free association by government decree.
Lies have been around forever perpetrated by government slugs.
" The force of a correction is equal and opposite to the deception that proceded it"
B. Bonner
"Since 1789 the only government on Earth that has the power to crush the American people`s liberties across the board is the government of the United States"
Robert Higgs
The 1st amendment predated the 1964 civil rights act.
Jusr by a little bit. Really.
Boy,,,I've been around here for a long time...and this has got
to be the stupidest post I have seen to date. Exactly WTF are you trying to say...cause it seems like mindless babble to me ?
You want to hang-out with illegals...or you don't want to...but are forced to cause their roaming around your circle of friends ???
Discover Costa Rica
Discover Costa Rica
Here, let me help you
The very same people who claimed to protect 'the people's' right to associate with whom they please restricted who 'the people' can associate with. Seems rather obvious and contradictory to me. But I suppose common sense is the new 'stupid', right?
There, does that make it more clear?
I'm not very surprised
To see that no one wants to touch this.