Re: Borders and Liberty
From May 11, 2010: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: MJ, I'm sure that you will agree that Article One, Section Eight does in fact assign powers to the United States Congress. In particular, Article 1 Section 8, Clause 1; which states in part: The Congress shall have the duty to.[P]rovide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States Wherein our Congress has a duty to make laws keeping illegal alien assholes who are intent on destroying our very way of life by flying planes into our skyscrapers, or setting off bombs in Times Square out of our of our Nation. You should also check out Article One, Section Eight, Clause Four, where the Congress is mandated to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization. The Congress has done so, including the ability to immigrate into our Nation, since 1796 , when it passed the Uniform Rule of Naturalization of 1795. What we have now, is those socialists, communists, and a few who are just downright ignorant of our laws, especially our Constitution, who have usurped power and corrupted our Congress. Again, I think we will see many of these Anti-Americans dismissed come November of this year. As I said, there is no room for interpretation here. The Constitution is Black and White, and those who advocate open borders, such as members of the Libertarian Party, along with wacko New World Order Moonbats like Bill Clinton and Georger Herbert Walker Bush are the ones who seem to get a sense of amnesia or forgetfulness when it comes to following the law of the land. On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:41 PM, M. Johnson micha...@america.net wrote: Keith The Constitution is literally Black and White. There is no gray area. One glance at the Preamble of the Constitution, and phrases such as Establish Justice; Insure Domestic Tranquility; Provide For snip MJ The Preamble, of course, offers no assign of Power. It merely lists six (6) goals that are accomplished BY following the Constitution. It is amusing -- though sad -- how 'conservatives' and 'republicans' seek to crucify 'democrats' and 'liberals' for something they themselves do without care or concern. Regard$, --MJ I was about to say that I'd hate to live in a country where the law could mean whatever its rulers said it meant, when it occurred to me that I already do. -- Joseph Sobran -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ http://www.politicalforum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups PoliticalForum group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Borders and Liberty
*yawn* Plucking continues to be your problem. AIS1C1 is a power -- a LIMITED power -- to 'Tax'. You are PLUCKING one of the three (3) limitations and transforming it into a power unto itself. You are further equivocating migration to other things that might be described by word(s) you *can* locate. This was already exposed at least twice. Naturalization has NOTHING to do with Immigration ... though that (AIS8C4) would be the LOGICAL place for the inclusion of Immigration. Congress can mandate/regulate until the cows come home about what hoops and trials *anyone* seeking to be naturalized (made a Citizen), but LACKS any such power/authority when it comes to people coming to America to live, work or merely 'hang out'. This was already exposed at least twice. As noted -- again AT LEAST twice -- usurpations bestowing such illegitimate (by definition) power occurred in the very late 1800s with the rise of the Nanny State. It is a NECESSARY requirement for such socialism and government intrusions. Regard$, --MJ The point is that republican government is premised on the idea of consent. The people consented to the interpretation of the Constitution that was presented to them in the ratifying conventions. If in the interim no formal change in the Constitution has been forthcoming from the people, then the understanding that was presented at the ratifying conventions must be presumed to stand. Otherwise, professors at Georgetown University could impose their own preferences on the public instead. -- Tom Woods At 10:00 AM 9/1/2014, you wrote: From May 11, 2010: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: MJ,  I'm sure that you will agree that Article One, Section Eight does in fact assign powers to the United States Congress.  In particular, Article 1 Section 8, Clause 1; which states in part:  The Congress shall have the duty to.[P]rovide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States  Wherein our Congress has a duty to make laws keeping illegal alien assholes who are intent on destroying our very way of life by flying planes into our skyscrapers, or setting off bombs in Times Square out of our of our Nation.  You should also check out Article One, Section Eight, Clause Four, where the Congress is mandated to  establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.  The Congress has done so, including the ability to immigrate into our Nation, since 1796 , when it passed the Uniform Rule of Naturalization of 1795. What we have now, is those socialists, communists, and a few who are just downright ignorant of our laws, especially our Constitution, who have usurped power and corrupted our Congress.  Again, I think we will see many of these Anti-Americans dismissed come November of this year.  As I said, there is no room for interpretation here.  The Constitution is Black and White, and those who advocate open borders, such as members of the Libertarian Party, along with wacko New World Order Moonbats like Bill Clinton and Georger Herbert Walker Bush are the ones who seem to get a sense of amnesia or forgetfulness when it comes to following the law of the land.      On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:41 PM, M. Johnson micha...@america.net wrote: Keith   The Constitution is literally Black and White.  There is no gray area.    One glance at the Preamble of the Constitution, and phrases such   as Establish Justice; Insure Domestic Tranquility; Provide For snip MJ The Preamble, of course, offers no assign of Power. It merely lists six (6) goals that are accomplished BY following the Constitution. It is amusing -- though sad -- how 'conservatives' and 'republicans' seek to crucify 'democrats' and 'liberals' for something they themselves do without care or concern. Regard$, --MJ I was about to say that I'd hate to live in a country where the law could mean whatever its rulers said it meant, when it occurred to me that I already do. -- Joseph Sobran -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups PoliticalForum group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Thanks for being part of
Re: Borders and Liberty
MJ The immigration laws -- as have been demonstrated numerous times -- are unconstitutional. The FEDS have no power/authority enumerated by the Constitution to make such laws. This makes the absurd silliness about 'entering' illegally complete nonsense. Plain opinion noted - not shared MJ This is clearly NOT an opinion. HERE is the Constitution: http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt CITE the article, section and clause or amendment that provides such a power. If you cannot, then you should see the reality that has been pointed out to you. Regard$, --MJ I was about to say that I'd hate to live in a country where the law could mean whatever its rulers said it meant, when it occurred to me that I already do. -- Joseph Sobran -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Borders and Liberty
Keith The Constitution is literally Black and White. There is no gray area. One glance at the Preamble of the Constitution, and phrases such as Establish Justice; Insure Domestic Tranquility; Provide For snip MJ The Preamble, of course, offers no assign of Power. It merely lists six (6) goals that are accomplished BY following the Constitution. It is amusing -- though sad -- how 'conservatives' and 'republicans' seek to crucify 'democrats' and 'liberals' for something they themselves do without care or concern. Regard$, --MJ I was about to say that I'd hate to live in a country where the law could mean whatever its rulers said it meant, when it occurred to me that I already do. -- Joseph Sobran -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * Its active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Borders and Liberty
CITE the article, section and clause or amendment that provides such a power --- no you sound like a jewish lawyer real American know what's just when they see it you are obviously not an American On May 11, 1:38 pm, M. Johnson micha...@america.net wrote: MJ The immigration laws -- as have been demonstrated numerous times -- are unconstitutional. The FEDS have no power/authority enumerated by the Constitution to make such laws. This makes the absurd silliness about 'entering' illegally complete nonsense. Plain opinion noted - not shared MJ This is clearly NOT an opinion. HERE is the Constitution:http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt CITE the article, section and clause or amendment that provides such a power. If you cannot, then you should see the reality that has been pointed out to you. Regard$, --MJ I was about to say that I'd hate to live in a country where the law could mean whatever its rulers said it meant, when it occurred to me that I already do. -- Joseph Sobran -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Borders and Liberty
more like non-American horseshit On May 3, 8:23 am, Zebnick zebn...@gmail.com wrote: Philosophical horse shit. On May 1, 5:11 pm, M. Johnson micha...@america.net wrote: Plain we will enforce our immigration lawsWhat Do You Mean “We”?bySheldon Richman, April 19, 2006 To say the least, there is tension between the ideas that we live in a free society and that government may determine whom we may sell to, rent to, and hire. This is the real heart of the immigration debate. Who should decide such things, free individuals or the state? This question is obscured by the democratic myth. People often say, “We as a nation have the right to decide who comes here and who doesn’t. So we must get control of our borders.” The problem with this is that “we as a nation” don’t do anything. Individuals act, sometimes in concert with other individuals, but collectives do nothing. When we say “the nation does such and such,” we mean a group of politicians calling themselves “the government” and claiming to act for the nation do such and such. It’s true that in a society such as ours people vote for officeholders. But the connection between punching out a chad in a polling station and politicians’ making immigration policy is, shall we say, roundabout. It is so roundabout that it makes no sense at all to say that punching out a chad is the same as determining immigration policy. That’s a fairy tale. It’s time we became men and women and put away childish things. Note that to the extent that “we” exercise the “collective freedom” of determining who can and can’t come here, real flesh-and-blood individuals lose that freedom. The Washington Post reports that immigration authorities are cracking down on employers who hire immigrants who have not complied with the bureaucratic demands made of them. The Post states, “Serious criminal charges once typically reserved for drug traffickers and organized-crime figures are increasingly being used to target businesses that employ illegal immigrants, a strategy highlighted last week when three Maryland restaurateurs pleaded guilty to federal offenses and agreed to forfeit more than $1 million in cash and property. The little-publicized approach, which can include charging such employers with money laundering [!] and seizing their assets, amounts to a strategic shift in the enforcement of immigration law in the workplace.” You can get 10 years for harboring illegals, 20 for money laundering. The assistant secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, put it plainly: “If you’re blatantly violating our worksite enforcement laws, we’ll go after your Mercedes and your mansion and your millions. We’ll go after everything we can, and we’ll charge you criminally.” “Ourworksite enforcement laws”? So much for free enterprise. Funny how the alleged party of the free market can be at the head of the mob demanding draconian sanctions against people who hire the “wrong” people. It’s not hard to divine the true priorities of that party. In all the blather about immigration, no one has stepped up to explain why, in what Mencken called the land of the theoretically free, individuals are not free to hire and sell and rent to whomever they wish. If I want to rent an apartment to and employ a Mexican, that’s no one’s business but my own, regardless of whether he’s cleared some arbitrary bureaucratic hurdles. The politicians should butt out, which in an earlier time was the essence of Americanism. I don’t think the government school curriculum features that very prominently. The usual reply to my “it’s no one else’s business” argument is that immigrants create harmful spillover effects. They use the schools, hospital emergency rooms, and so on. But notice that in that list of strained facilities, you never find Wal-Mart, Kmart, and Sears. Why is it that private businesses have no trouble handling increasing numbers of customers? Only welfare-state facilities can’t take it. Maybe there’s a message here. And maybe immigrants are being scapegoated for the government’s failings.http://www.fff.org/comment/com0604f.asp -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see
Re: Borders and Liberty
In Arizonas case here is the cite. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I believe Arizona's legislature passed it by a majority and the polls are also in the majority. After all, we are speaking of a STATE law.. you keep injecting the need for it to be blessed by the Nation.It does not need to be. On May 11, 12:38 pm, M. Johnson micha...@america.net wrote: MJ The immigration laws -- as have been demonstrated numerous times -- are unconstitutional. The FEDS have no power/authority enumerated by the Constitution to make such laws. This makes the absurd silliness about 'entering' illegally complete nonsense. Plain opinion noted - not shared MJ This is clearly NOT an opinion. HERE is the Constitution:http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt CITE the article, section and clause or amendment that provides such a power. If you cannot, then you should see the reality that has been pointed out to you. Regard$, --MJ I was about to say that I'd hate to live in a country where the law could mean whatever its rulers said it meant, when it occurred to me that I already do. -- Joseph Sobran -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Borders and Liberty
MJ, I'm sure that you will agree that Article One, Section Eight does in fact assign powers to the United States Congress. In particular, Article 1 Section 8, Clause 1; which states in part: The Congress shall have the duty to.[P]rovide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States Wherein our Congress has a duty to make laws keeping illegal alien assholes who are intent on destroying our very way of life by flying planes into our skyscrapers, or setting off bombs in Times Square out of our of our Nation. You should also check out Article One, Section Eight, Clause Four, where the Congress is mandated to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization. The Congress has done so, including the ability to immigrate into our Nation, since 1796 , when it passed the Uniform Rule of Naturalization of 1795. What we have now, is those socialists, communists, and a few who are just downright ignorant of our laws, especially our Constitution, who have usurped power and corrupted our Congress. Again, I think we will see many of these Anti-Americans dismissed come November of this year. As I said, there is no room for interpretation here. The Constitution is Black and White, and those who advocate open borders, such as members of the Libertarian Party, along with wacko New World Order Moonbats like Bill Clinton and Georger Herbert Walker Bush are the ones who seem to get a sense of amnesia or forgetfulness when it comes to following the law of the land. On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:41 PM, M. Johnson micha...@america.net wrote: Keith The Constitution is literally Black and White. There is no gray area. One glance at the Preamble of the Constitution, and phrases such as Establish Justice; Insure Domestic Tranquility; Provide For snip MJ The Preamble, of course, offers no assign of Power. It merely lists six (6) goals that are accomplished BY following the Constitution. It is amusing -- though sad -- how 'conservatives' and 'republicans' seek to crucify 'democrats' and 'liberals' for something they themselves do without care or concern. Regard$, --MJ I was about to say that I'd hate to live in a country where the law could mean whatever its rulers said it meant, when it occurred to me that I already do. -- Joseph Sobran -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/http://www.politicalforum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Borders and Liberty
The immigration laws -- as have been demonstrated numerous times -- are unconstitutional. The FEDS have no power/authority enumerated by the Constitution to make such laws. This makes the absurd silliness about 'entering' illegally complete nonsense. opinion noted - not shared that you don't think we have the right to make and enforce immigration laws says tons about your patriotism and character On May 1, 3:38 pm, M. Johnson micha...@america.net wrote: Plain the USA does not belong the rest of the planet - we are a sovereign nation we are not a charity organization we are not responsible for the health or safety of other nations (including Israel) we will enforce our immigration laws entering the USA illegally is a punishable crime Let The Trail Of Tears II begin!!! MJ Your strawman efforts are noted. The immigration laws -- as have been demonstrated numerous times -- are unconstitutional. The FEDS have no power/authority enumerated by the Constitution to make such laws. This makes the absurd silliness about 'entering' illegally complete nonsense. Regard$, --MJ I was about to say that I'd hate to live in a country where the law could mean whatever its rulers said it meant, when it occurred to me that I already do. -- Joseph Sobran -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Borders and Liberty
Hey PlainOl'; The Constitution is literally Black and White. There is no gray area. One glance at the Preamble of the Constitution, and phrases such as Establish Justice; Insure Domestic Tranquility; Provide For The Common Defence; and to Promote The General Welfare, as well as to, Secure The Blessings Of Liberty To Ourselves And Our Posterity; makes M.J.'s argument for naught, and outright foolish. Again, this is the reason that conservatives left the Libertarian Party in droves, and formed think tanks like the Cato Institute, and flocked to the Republican Party, because of goofy ideas like open borders. On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:03 AM, plainolamerican plainolameri...@gmail.comwrote: The immigration laws -- as have been demonstrated numerous times -- are unconstitutional. The FEDS have no power/authority enumerated by the Constitution to make such laws. This makes the absurd silliness about 'entering' illegally complete nonsense. opinion noted - not shared that you don't think we have the right to make and enforce immigration laws says tons about your patriotism and character On May 1, 3:38 pm, M. Johnson micha...@america.net wrote: Plain the USA does not belong the rest of the planet - we are a sovereign nation we are not a charity organization we are not responsible for the health or safety of other nations (including Israel) we will enforce our immigration laws entering the USA illegally is a punishable crime Let The Trail Of Tears II begin!!! MJ Your strawman efforts are noted. The immigration laws -- as have been demonstrated numerous times -- are unconstitutional. The FEDS have no power/authority enumerated by the Constitution to make such laws. This makes the absurd silliness about 'entering' illegally complete nonsense. Regard$, --MJ I was about to say that I'd hate to live in a country where the law could mean whatever its rulers said it meant, when it occurred to me that I already do. -- Joseph Sobran -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/http://www.politicalforum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/http://www.politicalforum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Borders and Liberty
Philosophical horse shit. On May 1, 5:11 pm, M. Johnson micha...@america.net wrote: Plain we will enforce our immigration lawsWhat Do You Mean “We”?bySheldon Richman, April 19, 2006 To say the least, there is tension between the ideas that we live in a free society and that government may determine whom we may sell to, rent to, and hire. This is the real heart of the immigration debate. Who should decide such things, free individuals or the state? This question is obscured by the democratic myth. People often say, “We as a nation have the right to decide who comes here and who doesn’t. So we must get control of our borders.” The problem with this is that “we as a nation” don’t do anything. Individuals act, sometimes in concert with other individuals, but collectives do nothing. When we say “the nation does such and such,” we mean a group of politicians calling themselves “the government” and claiming to act for the nation do such and such. It’s true that in a society such as ours people vote for officeholders. But the connection between punching out a chad in a polling station and politicians’ making immigration policy is, shall we say, roundabout. It is so roundabout that it makes no sense at all to say that punching out a chad is the same as determining immigration policy. That’s a fairy tale. It’s time we became men and women and put away childish things. Note that to the extent that “we” exercise the “collective freedom” of determining who can and can’t come here, real flesh-and-blood individuals lose that freedom. The Washington Post reports that immigration authorities are cracking down on employers who hire immigrants who have not complied with the bureaucratic demands made of them. The Post states, “Serious criminal charges once typically reserved for drug traffickers and organized-crime figures are increasingly being used to target businesses that employ illegal immigrants, a strategy highlighted last week when three Maryland restaurateurs pleaded guilty to federal offenses and agreed to forfeit more than $1 million in cash and property. The little-publicized approach, which can include charging such employers with money laundering [!] and seizing their assets, amounts to a strategic shift in the enforcement of immigration law in the workplace.” You can get 10 years for harboring illegals, 20 for money laundering. The assistant secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, put it plainly: “If you’re blatantly violating our worksite enforcement laws, we’ll go after your Mercedes and your mansion and your millions. We’ll go after everything we can, and we’ll charge you criminally.” “Ourworksite enforcement laws”? So much for free enterprise. Funny how the alleged party of the free market can be at the head of the mob demanding draconian sanctions against people who hire the “wrong” people. It’s not hard to divine the true priorities of that party. In all the blather about immigration, no one has stepped up to explain why, in what Mencken called the land of the theoretically free, individuals are not free to hire and sell and rent to whomever they wish. If I want to rent an apartment to and employ a Mexican, that’s no one’s business but my own, regardless of whether he’s cleared some arbitrary bureaucratic hurdles. The politicians should butt out, which in an earlier time was the essence of Americanism. I don’t think the government school curriculum features that very prominently. The usual reply to my “it’s no one else’s business” argument is that immigrants create harmful spillover effects. They use the schools, hospital emergency rooms, and so on. But notice that in that list of strained facilities, you never find Wal-Mart, Kmart, and Sears. Why is it that private businesses have no trouble handling increasing numbers of customers? Only welfare-state facilities can’t take it. Maybe there’s a message here. And maybe immigrants are being scapegoated for the government’s failings.http://www.fff.org/comment/com0604f.asp -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Borders and Liberty
the USA does not belong the rest of the planet - we are a sovereign nation we are not a charity organization we are not responsible for the health or safety of other nations (including Israel) we will enforce our immigration laws entering the USA illegally is a punishable crime Let The Trail Of Tears II begin!!! we do welcome legal immigrants who renounce their old government, pledge an oath of loyalty to the USA, learn english, and pay their taxes without whining On May 1, 9:29 am, M. Johnson micha...@america.net wrote: Arizona Immigrant Law Heads to Court“The first legal challenges to Arizona’s stringent new anti-illegal-immigration law were filed Thursday in federal court in Phoenix and Tucson, heralding a legal battle that could take months, if not years, to resolve. Major civil rights and legal groups announced separately that they would soon be taking legal action to block the law, part of a flurry of maneuvers intended to prevent it from taking effect.” (New York Times, Friday)A clash of the Tenth and 14th Amendments?Borders and LibertybyAndrew P. Morriss July 2004 • Volume: 54 • Issue: 7 •Andrew Morrissis Galen J. Roush Professor of Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, and senior associate at PERC, the Property and Environment Research Center, Bozeman, Montana.Borders play a critical role in our lives. Some of the borders that matter to us are ones we establish ourselves: this ismyhouse and property; that isyourhouse and property. By choosing what is mine and using the legal system to mark it off from what is yours, I create a border. While not quite as invulnerable as suggested by the maxim “A man’s home is his castle,” my property gives me a firm border against you. Borders come from property rights and are essential to a free society. At the macro level we have political bordersunrelated to property rights, more permeable than personal-level borders, but just as important to ensuring liberty. When I drive from my home to my office, I cross the borders of multiple political subdivisions of the state of Ohio, moving from Columbia Township to Cleveland, from Lorain County to Cuyahoga County. Those borders are invisible but important. Cleveland confiscates 2 percent of my salary because my work lies within its borders (Ohio cities can levy local income taxes). Columbia Township taxes my home. Columbia does not tax my income, and so income I earn at home is worth 2 percent more to me than wages at work. Cleveland cannot tax my home, freeing me from the concern that people I cannot vote for could tax property as well as income. (Of course I also worry about people Icanvote for taxing my income and assets, but at least there is a theoretical possibility of throwing the rascals out when I vote.) These borders are all permeable: I do not need to show identification to pass across any of them and do not need to justify my purpose in moving among the various cities and towns along my drive to and from work. Other macro-level borders are less permeable. When I walk across the U.S.-Mexican border near my parents’ home in Yuma, Arizona, in one direction I must satisfy Mexican authorities that my purpose is legitimate. In the other, I must satisfy U.S. authorities that my return is legitimate. In both directions, people with guns are standing by, ready to keep me out should I fail to satisfy them about the legitimacy of my purpose. Only the Americans with guns seem worried about who is entering the United States. They look at my identification, ask what I was doing in Mexico, and, sometimes, have dogs sniff my vehicle and belongings. In many respects, these macro-level borders are wonderful things. Lorain and Cuyahoga counties in Ohio must compete for my family’s residence. Choosing to live where we do is related to the taxes charged by the communities where we might have lived. Investors make similar choices. The choices by families about where to live and invest their money influence communities’ public policies. Choosing bad policies produces an exodus; choosing good policies leads to immigration of both capital and people. For example, Cleveland is trying to reverse its post-World War II decline in population by offering to exempt new construction from real-estate taxes for 15 years. Such competition isn’t perfect, of course, and only operates on the margin. Desirable locations such as New York City will be able to impose higher taxes than less-desirable locations such as Cleveland. Nonetheless, the competition offered on local taxation policy and other regulatory issues is important in restraining governments from infringing liberty. Macro borders with competition enhance liberty. At the state and local level the only way politicians can prevent such competition is by eliminating borders. In Cleveland, “regional leaders” are pushing consolidation of
Re: Borders and Liberty
Washington (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other leading Democratic senators will formally unveil the outlines of legislation for comprehensive immigration reform late Thursday, CNN has learned. Two senior Democratic sources say the Senate Democrats will discuss a proposal drafted by Reid, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez. This is a draft that reflects months of bipartisan work. It is intended to serve as an invitation to Republicans to look at it and sit down to solve problems with us, one of the sources said. The 26-page draft obtained by CNN attempts to woo GOP senators in part by calling for concrete benchmarks to secure the border before granting illegal immigrants the opportunity to gain legal status. Those benchmarks include: increasing the number of border patrol officers and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, increasing the number of personnel available to inspect for drugs and contraband, and improving technology used to assist ICE agents. At the same time, high-tech ground sensors would be installed across the Mexican border. Officers would be equipped with the technological capability to respond to activation of the ground sensors in the area they are patrolling, according to the draft. Fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant biometric Social Security cards would be issued to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants. Fines for knowingly hiring someone not eligible for employment would be increased by 300 percent. Repeat offenders would face time in prison. The draft proposal includes a process to legalize an estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants in the United States. It states that all illegal immigrants living in the United States would be required to come forward to register, be screened, and, if eligible, complete other requirements to earn legal status, including paying taxes. Illegal immigrants cleared by federal authorities would be eligible to petition for permanent resident status eight years after current visa backlogs have cleared. Reid, Schumer, Menendez and three other Democratic senators met Wednesday evening with immigration reform advocates and agreed to hold a news conference Thursday to unveil the draft, CNN has learned. Other leaders on the issue have been trying to secure elusive GOP support for the push, which is one of President Obama's top domestic priorities. Schumer said Thursday that he is continuing to meet with Republicans on the issue. But New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, one the Republicans who spoke to Schumer on Thursday, said he won't do anything on immigration until the administration shows some willingness to address the border issue, and I think so far they have not fulfilled their responsibilities on the border. Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she told Schumer on Wednesday that before moving ahead with other elements of immigration reform, a real effort must be made first to secure the border and do all we can there. Both Gregg and Murkowski said they do not consider themselves in play to potentially back the Democratic plan. Meanwhile, the top Republican in the House dismissed the plan as a political ploy with little chance of passage. There is not a chance that immigration is going to move through the Congress, said House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio. I've been around here for a little while and know that in the middle of an election year, after we've had bills like health care shoved down our throats ... you cannot do a serious piece of legislation of this size. The proposal is nothing more than a cynical ploy to engage voters, some segment of voters, to show up in this November's elections. Boehner said that although Congress needs to take up the issue of immigration reform, you can't do it without serious bipartisan conversations and bipartisan discussions. In arguing that immigration reform cannot pass Congress this year, Boehner referenced Obama's comments on Air Force One on Tuesday night, when the president said there may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue on Capitol Hill. It's a matter of political will, Obama said. We've gone through a very tough year, and I've been working Congress pretty hard. Several sources involved in the Democratic effort noted that Reid promised Hispanics in Nevada, a key voting bloc for the majority leader, that he would bring up immigration reform. If the Republicans immediately reject the proposal, they indicated, Reid may have sufficient political cover to not bring the divisive issue to the Senate floor. A spokesman for Reid took issue Thursday with the assertion that the Senate majority leader is pushing the bill for political reasons. Reid's commitment to this issue is genuine and long-standing, Jim Manley said. Even though people think he's doing this for political reasons, he wants to do this because he believes it is the right thing to do. On May 1, 2:35 pm, plainolamerican
Re: Borders and Liberty
Washington (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other leading Democratic senators will formally unveil the outlines of legislation for comprehensive immigration reform late Thursday, CNN has learned. Two senior Democratic sources say the Senate Democrats will discuss a proposal drafted by Reid, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez. This is a draft that reflects months of bipartisan work. It is intended to serve as an invitation to Republicans to look at it and sit down to solve problems with us, one of the sources said. The 26-page draft obtained by CNN attempts to woo GOP senators in part by calling for concrete benchmarks to secure the border before granting illegal immigrants the opportunity to gain legal status. Those benchmarks include: increasing the number of border patrol officers and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, increasing the number of personnel available to inspect for drugs and contraband, and improving technology used to assist ICE agents. At the same time, high-tech ground sensors would be installed across the Mexican border. Officers would be equipped with the technological capability to respond to activation of the ground sensors in the area they are patrolling, according to the draft. Fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant biometric Social Security cards would be issued to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants. Fines for knowingly hiring someone not eligible for employment would be increased by 300 percent. Repeat offenders would face time in prison. The draft proposal includes a process to legalize an estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants in the United States. It states that all illegal immigrants living in the United States would be required to come forward to register, be screened, and, if eligible, complete other requirements to earn legal status, including paying taxes. Illegal immigrants cleared by federal authorities would be eligible to petition for permanent resident status eight years after current visa backlogs have cleared. Reid, Schumer, Menendez and three other Democratic senators met Wednesday evening with immigration reform advocates and agreed to hold a news conference Thursday to unveil the draft, CNN has learned. Other leaders on the issue have been trying to secure elusive GOP support for the push, which is one of President Obama's top domestic priorities. Schumer said Thursday that he is continuing to meet with Republicans on the issue. But New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, one the Republicans who spoke to Schumer on Thursday, said he won't do anything on immigration until the administration shows some willingness to address the border issue, and I think so far they have not fulfilled their responsibilities on the border. Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she told Schumer on Wednesday that before moving ahead with other elements of immigration reform, a real effort must be made first to secure the border and do all we can there. Both Gregg and Murkowski said they do not consider themselves in play to potentially back the Democratic plan. Meanwhile, the top Republican in the House dismissed the plan as a political ploy with little chance of passage. There is not a chance that immigration is going to move through the Congress, said House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio. I've been around here for a little while and know that in the middle of an election year, after we've had bills like health care shoved down our throats ... you cannot do a serious piece of legislation of this size. The proposal is nothing more than a cynical ploy to engage voters, some segment of voters, to show up in this November's elections. Boehner said that although Congress needs to take up the issue of immigration reform, you can't do it without serious bipartisan conversations and bipartisan discussions. In arguing that immigration reform cannot pass Congress this year, Boehner referenced Obama's comments on Air Force One on Tuesday night, when the president said there may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue on Capitol Hill. It's a matter of political will, Obama said. We've gone through a very tough year, and I've been working Congress pretty hard. Several sources involved in the Democratic effort noted that Reid promised Hispanics in Nevada, a key voting bloc for the majority leader, that he would bring up immigration reform. If the Republicans immediately reject the proposal, they indicated, Reid may have sufficient political cover to not bring the divisive issue to the Senate floor. A spokesman for Reid took issue Thursday with the assertion that the Senate majority leader is pushing the bill for political reasons. Reid's commitment to this issue is genuine and long-standing, Jim Manley said. Even though people think he's doing this for political reasons, he wants to do this because he believes it is the right thing to do. On May 1, 2:39 pm, plainolamerican
Re: Borders and Liberty
Plain the USA does not belong the rest of the planet - we are a sovereign nation we are not a charity organization we are not responsible for the health or safety of other nations (including Israel) we will enforce our immigration laws entering the USA illegally is a punishable crime Let The Trail Of Tears II begin!!! MJ Your strawman efforts are noted. The immigration laws -- as have been demonstrated numerous times -- are unconstitutional. The FEDS have no power/authority enumerated by the Constitution to make such laws. This makes the absurd silliness about 'entering' illegally complete nonsense. Regard$, --MJ I was about to say that I'd hate to live in a country where the law could mean whatever its rulers said it meant, when it occurred to me that I already do. -- Joseph Sobran -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Borders and Liberty
Plain we will enforce our immigration laws What Do You Mean “We”? by Sheldon Richman, April 19, 2006 To say the least, there is tension between the ideas that we live in a free society and that government may determine whom we may sell to, rent to, and hire. This is the real heart of the immigration debate. Who should decide such things, free individuals or the state? This question is obscured by the democratic myth. People often say, “We as a nation have the right to decide who comes here and who doesn’t. So we must get control of our borders.” The problem with this is that “we as a nation” don’t do anything. Individuals act, sometimes in concert with other individuals, but collectives do nothing. When we say “the nation does such and such,” we mean a group of politicians calling themselves “the government” and claiming to act for the nation do such and such. It’s true that in a society such as ours people vote for officeholders. But the connection between punching out a chad in a polling station and politicians’ making immigration policy is, shall we say, roundabout. It is so roundabout that it makes no sense at all to say that punching out a chad is the same as determining immigration policy. That’s a fairy tale. It’s time we became men and women and put away childish things. Note that to the extent that “we” exercise the “collective freedom” of determining who can and can’t come here, real flesh-and-blood individuals lose that freedom. The Washington Post reports that immigration authorities are cracking down on employers who hire immigrants who have not complied with the bureaucratic demands made of them. The Post states, “Serious criminal charges once typically reserved for drug traffickers and organized-crime figures are increasingly being used to target businesses that employ illegal immigrants, a strategy highlighted last week when three Maryland restaurateurs pleaded guilty to federal offenses and agreed to forfeit more than $1 million in cash and property. The little-publicized approach, which can include charging such employers with money laundering [!] and seizing their assets, amounts to a strategic shift in the enforcement of immigration law in the workplace.” You can get 10 years for harboring illegals, 20 for money laundering. The assistant secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, put it plainly: “If you’re blatantly violating our worksite enforcement laws, we’ll go after your Mercedes and your mansion and your millions. We’ll go after everything we can, and we’ll charge you criminally.” “Our worksite enforcement laws”? So much for free enterprise. Funny how the alleged party of the free market can be at the head of the mob demanding draconian sanctions against people who hire the “wrong” people. It’s not hard to divine the true priorities of that party. In all the blather about immigration, no one has stepped up to explain why, in what Mencken called the land of the theoretically free, individuals are not free to hire and sell and rent to whomever they wish. If I want to rent an apartment to and employ a Mexican, that’s no one’s business but my own, regardless of whether he’s cleared some arbitrary bureaucratic hurdles. The politicians should butt out, which in an earlier time was the essence of Americanism. I don’t think the government school curriculum features that very prominently. The usual reply to my “it’s no one else’s business” argument is that immigrants create harmful spillover effects. They use the schools, hospital emergency rooms, and so on. But notice that in that list of strained facilities, you never find Wal-Mart, Kmart, and Sears. Why is it that private businesses have no trouble handling increasing numbers of customers? Only welfare-state facilities can’t take it. Maybe there’s a message here. And maybe immigrants are being scapegoated for the government’s failings. http://www.fff.org/comment/com0604f.asp -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * Its active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
