Darryl W. Perry: Donald Trump’s Immigration Policy Violates Human Rights

trumpfreezonejpeg

From Darryl W. Perry at Free Press Publications:

Donald Trump recently published a policy statement on immigration, stating, “A nation without borders is not a nation. [Therefore] There must be a wall across the southern border.” Adding that “Mexico must pay for the wall.” Additionally Trump wants to “Cut-off federal grants to any city which refuses to cooperate with federal law enforcement [in regards to immigration law].” (i.e. sanctuary cities) And he wants to end birthright citizenship, claiming “no sane country would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.”

There are numerous problems with Trumps position on immigration. For starters, as reported by the Washington Post, “The history of the United States… shows that borders – and nations – can exist without immigration restrictions. Until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the federal government did not forbid voluntary immigration. Indeed, the original meaning of the Constitution did not give Congress the power to do so, allowing it to restrict eligibility for citizenship, but not to forbid migration.” Adding that Argentina does “not restrict immigration. Few would argue that Argentina is not a real nation, that it has no borders, or that it somehow ceased to exist when it adopted a virtual open borders policy towards migrants in 2004.”

I seriously doubt that Donald Trump would argue that the United States was not a nation until 1882, or that Argentina is not a nation unto itself. Argentina is also one of 32 countries in additional to the United States of America that grants birthright citizenship to everyone born within the borders of the country, including children born to tourists and undocumented immigrants. That list also includes Mexico, a country which many so-called conservatives point to as a model for US immigration laws.

Earlier this year, former Mexican President Felipe Calderon said, “Many [immigrants] are currently trapped. There are a lot of these people [who] want to be in Mexico eight months every year, but they are unable to go there, because if they cross the border, they will never be able to cross back again.” Adding, “I don’t believe that most of the Mexican workers looking for a job in the United States are wanting to be American citizens. They are looking for an opportunity to get economic benefits and actually thinking when they are leaving [Mexico] what will be the way in which they can go back to their own home.”

In regards to sanctuary cities, I have to wonder if Donald Trump would have opposed northern nullification of the Fugitive Slave Acts! The Tenth Amendment Center reports, “one of the driving forces behind personal liberty laws was the number of free blacks kidnapped and forced into slavery. Under the Fugitive Slave Act, they had no recourse. They started under the presumption of guilt, and the process made it impossible to prove otherwise.” The primary difference between nullification of the Fugitive Slave Acts and the existence of so-called sanctuary cities is that the Constitution explicitly authorized the Fugitive Slave Acts, however it did not give Congress the power to regulate immigration. In fact, The US Supreme Court has ruled the federal government “cannot require cities and states to hold and hand over detainees.”

Instead of treating people seeking a little economic prosperity as criminals who are incarcerated and fined, people seeking to improve their life should be allowed to do so without interference from a government as long as they are not violating the life, liberty or property of any other person.

106 thoughts on “Darryl W. Perry: Donald Trump’s Immigration Policy Violates Human Rights

  1. jim

    This “reasoning” is nutty: “Until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the federal government did not forbid voluntary immigration. Indeed, the original meaning of the Constitution did not give Congress the power to do so, allowing it to restrict eligibility for citizenship, but not to forbid migration.”
    A Constitution cannot be expected to anticipate and define every situation or concern. At most, it would be claimed that the original laws of the United States didn’t restriction migration, NOT that Congress was powerless to write such laws. This guy obviously knows very little of the law.

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    The United States has become one of the globes worst violators of human rights in its use of torture, murder-by-drone, and supporting regimes who kill people. Of course some want to extend this to immigrants desperate to better their lives. Are our citizens too immoral to fix this? Today I think so,

  3. Mark Axinn

    Hey Jed–

    Great cartoon!

    –Mark in New York (about midway between Trump Tower and Trump UN Plaza)

  4. paulie

    A Constitution cannot be expected to anticipate and define every situation or concern. At most, it would be claimed that the original laws of the United States didn’t restriction migration, NOT that Congress was powerless to write such laws.

    There’s a list of defined powers for a reason. If Congress can make up any laws it wants, why does that list exist at all? The purpose of the constitution is to limit government. If there’s a list of things congress can do, that means it is not allowed to anything that is not on the list.

  5. Mark Axinn

    Or to put it another way, do we believe that government should be limited to only the enumerated powers which the people agree to give to it, or do we believe that government should have any powers that it desires, such that our rights may be curtailed at any time by a government that decrees what rights each of has?

    I vote for Door Number One.

  6. trying again

    The Constituion empowers the Congress to define and punish crimes against the Laws of Nations, which of course includes defining legal migration of one national from another nation into our nation. Every nation had this power, including the 13 free and independent states. That’s what it means to be a nation. (If you are ignorant of this fact, you should probably read some of the Enlightment thinkers that the Founders did in order to educate yourself.)

    Another clause then restricted Congress from restricting migration until 1808. Up until 1808, only the states had the power to restrict migration; since then both the states and the Congress have had co-equal Conatitutional power to restrict migration.

    When Adams passed the Aliens Act to restrict migration, Jefferson pointed out in the Kentucky Resolution that the law was invalid because it was not yet 1808 and Congress did not yet have the power to restrict migration.

    Hope this helps.

  7. jim

    What you are referring to (1808) was the prohibition on Congress restricting import of slaves.

  8. Darryl W. Perry

    “The Constituion empowers the Congress to define and punish crimes against the Laws of Nations”
    So you’re saying that the Constitution authorizes tyranny as long as it’s done under the guise of “enforcing the laws of the nation”?

  9. Andy

    Darryl, since you are a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s Presidential nomination, what do you think of my Libertarian Zone concept?

    The Libertarian Zone is basically a big condo association that has an enforceable contract for immigration into The Libertarian Zone. Immigrants and people who are born into The Libertarian Zone are held to the same standard and the same contract.

    The Libertarian Zone is meant to be a place where Libertarians can live in the same area and be as free as possible (think something like Porcfest, only year round). It is meant to attract libertarians and repel non-libertarians.

    Check out the article and let me know what you think.

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/

  10. paulie

    Are there differences between the concepts Andy J Zones and Capozzi’s… I am forgetting what they are called now, anarcho-bubble zones, or something like that?

  11. Andy

    “paulie

    August 27, 2015 at 1:17 am

    Are there differences between the concepts Andy J Zones and Capozzi’s… I am forgetting what they are called now, anarcho-bubble zones, or something like that?”

    I do not recall Capozzi going into any detail on his anachy pods or whatever he calls them.

  12. Darryl W. Perry

    @Andy,
    I like the concept of voluntary communities. I also like the idea of polycentric societies. I believe that everyone should have the level of government they desire, and in a truly free society without coercive government, both voluntary communities (i.e. Libertarian Zones, Freedom bubbles, Temporary Autonomous Zones, etc) and polycentric societies would exist; and hopefully there would be flying cars, and I’d be able to visit them all!

  13. jim

    Quoting one of the references:
    “Under established law, a child born here is a U.S. citizen, even if the parents are present without permission. That rule derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” So changing the rule would mean amending the Constitution.”

    WRONG! The thing that currently allows children of illegals to be citizens is the (current) law, NOT the 14th Amendment. Congress could change the law tomorrow, without fear of violating the 14th Amendment. Congress could even make such a change retroactive, removing the citizenship of anchor-babies.

    The Supreme Court’s view of the law, facts, and Constitution as of 1898 was a case called Wong Kim Ark. At that time, there was essentially no such thing as an ‘illegal alien”: Virtually everyone who showed up in San Francisco and Ellis Island were welcome. So, the Supreme Court decided that case based on the then-reality that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were legally in America when he was born. But the law changed in the early 1920’s: There was and is no reason to believe that the 1898 decision was directly applicable to later law situations.
    The following is a quote from the Syllabus, not the decision itself, at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

    “The case was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts agreed by the parties:
    That the said Wong Kim Ark was born in the year 1873, at No. 751 Sacramento Street, in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, and [p651] that his mother and father were persons of Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China, and that said Wong Kim Ark was and is a laborer.
    That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid.
    That said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark continued to reside and remain in the United States until the year 1890, when they departed for China.
    That during all the time of their said residence in the United States as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.”
    […]

    And from the decision itself:

    “The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,”

    [and]

    “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.”
    “In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
    There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

    124 U.S. 478.

    “II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”
    [end of quote]

    “Hostile occupation” can be easily construed as the state of an illegal alien in America.

  14. paulie

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

    How is that hard to understand?

    All persons born in the US are citizens, period. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

    That’s the constitution itself, not a court case.

    Terms such as “illegals” and “anchor babies” are total nonesense and unadulterated horseshit.

    “Hostile occupation” can be easily construed as the state of an illegal alien in America.

    That’s even more ridiculous than the false concept of “illegal alien” itself, hard as it may be to believe that anything could possibly be more ridiculous than such a ludicrous idea or turn of phrase.

  15. jim

    paulie commented on Darryl W. Perry: Donald Trump’s Immigration Policy Violates Human Rights.

    in response to jim:

    Quoting one of the references: “Under established law, a child born here is a U.S. citizen, even if the parents are present without permission. That rule derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” So changing the rule would mean amending the Constitution.” WRONG! The […]

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

    “How is that hard to understand?”

    You have fallen into the traps that non-lawyers often do. You think that all words used in law have the meaning YOU think they do. ‘Jurisdiction is a word of many, too many meanings”. Google that.
    I’ve spent over 10,000 hours in law libraries. How about you?

    “All persons born in the US are citizens, period. No ifs, ands or buts about it.”

    Children of diplomats, children of invading armies. Do these ring a bell for you? Those are merely examples, not an exclusive list.

    “That’s the constitution itself, not an amendment.”

    It wouldn’t matter. An Amendment BECOMES part of the Constitution. Amendments aren’t second-class rules.

    “Terms such as “illegals” and “anchor babies” are total nonesense and unadulterated horseshit.”

    You display your PC-ness well.

    “Hostile occupation” can be easily construed as the state of an illegal alien in America.”

    “That’s even more ridiculous than the false concept of “illegal alien” itself, hard as it may be to believe that anything could possibly be more ridiculous than such a ludicrous idea or turn of phrase.”

    So, you admit you disagree with this part of the Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark decision?

  16. jim

    Paulie:
    I decided to do the work for you, Google-searching “Jurisdiction is a word of many, too many meanings”.
    http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

    Partial quote follows:

    “After the Revolution, States retained only those portions of common law that were applicable to their local circumstances. In England at the time, the general rule – not a hard rule since could be suspended when required by the King – every person born within the Kings allegiance and within any of the King’s realms or dominions was considered a natural born subject under the maxim every man owes natural allegiance to the King whom may have been born in any of his realms or dominions. This natural allegiance was perpetual and difficult to severe or alter (Once a English subject, always a English subject) and was found odious in this country (America went to war against this “natural allegiance” in 1812).”

    “In early America the common law rule of “natural allegiance” was discarded as well as the rule of automatic citizenship to children born to aliens regardless of their condition. Other differences that differed from the common law were the general rule children born to transient aliens or temporary sojourners remained alien. Early states also required of aliens who desired to become domiciled within their limits to first renounce any allegiances to other governments and pledge their allegiance solely to the State. Therefore, a child born to domiciled alien parents was “born within the allegiance” of the State even if the parents had not yet been naturalized would be considered a citizen of the state and a United States citizen.”

    “Moreover, when an issue of aliens and citizenship went before the courts it meant some State had neglected to enact laws on the subject, thereby forcing the courts to adjudicate citizenship under common law rules of place of birth. This is exactly what happened with the State of New York in 1844, forcing the State to later withhold automatic citizenship of children born to “transient aliens” by statute. *”

    “Conceivably, Congress could had from the beginning attempted to include a defined local birthright rule – whether due to place of birth or parentage – but would have found, just as the Thirty-Ninth Congress had discovered, to be no simple matter as individual States had differing opinions over who should, or should not, be their citizens.”

    “As a rule, the nation considered only those patriotic immigrants who came here for the exclusive purpose to settling amongst us, bringing with them wealth, like habits and customs as those worthy to become part of our society. And more importantly, those willing to renounce all prior allegiances to their country of origin and swear exclusive fidelity to this one.”

    “Paupers, vagabonds and imperialist were universally despised.”

    “The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits. Under the common law rule it did not matter if one was born within the allegiance of another nation.”

    “Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.””

    “Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    “Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.””

    “Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed on March 1, 1866 that children under this class of aliens would not be citizens: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.””

    “Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.”
    [end of partial quote]

    Paulie, I know you want reality to be different, but this is the way the authors of the 14th Amendment (and the Congress that voted on it, and the legislatures who ratified it) INTENDED it to mean. That we, as a nation, have mostly forgotten this fact, doesn’t mean that it isn’t true.

  17. paulie

    Really, you are going to argue that undocumented workers are not subject to US jurisdiction? That doesn’t make any sense. Diplomats as I am sure you know have diplomatic immunity. Soldiers who are captured have rights under the Geneva convention as prisoners of war. None of that is analogous to the normal criminal jurisdiction applied to undocumented workers routinely in the US, nor to the civil jurisdiction they are also subject to. And please… they are not diplomats or soldiers at war, that’s just silly. They are most certainly under US jurisdiction when here. I don’t care how many hours you have spent in law libraries, it does not make you right, and there are other people who spent just as much time in law libraries as you who disagree with you and agree with me.

    “That’s the constitution itself, not an amendment.”

    It wouldn’t matter. An Amendment BECOMES part of the Constitution. Amendments aren’t second-class rules.

    Sorry, I misspoke. I meant the constitution, not a court case. Fixed now.

    You display your PC-ness well.

    Not “politically” correct, just plain old correct, period.

    So, you admit you disagree with this part of the Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark decision?

    If that’s part of their decision, absolutely.

  18. paulie

    “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

    What makes you think undocumented workers who fled foreign regimes, either for fear of persecution or out of economic necessity, owe allegiance to those foreig regimes? They do not.

  19. trying again

    @ Darryl Perry 8-26 10:29 am —

    “Law of Nations” and “laws of the nations” are different words and different concepts. You are an illiterate.

  20. trying again

    @paulie 8-27 12:18pm

    re “No ifs, ands or buts about it.”

    Did you not even read what you quoted. It clearly says “AND subject to the jurisidction thereof.”

    and = and
    ( just as
    a = a)

    You are an illiterate moron.

  21. jim

    Paulie, you said,
    “Really, you are going to argue that undocumented workers are not subject to US jurisdiction?”
    My answer, yet again:
    “Jurisdiction is a word of many, too many meanings”. Steel Co.v. Citizens for a Better Env. (2003)
    See reference in: http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

    “In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provide the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

    “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

    “In other words, it isn’t local jurisdiction the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes but only the lack of owing allegiance to some other nation because the United States only recognizes those who are ‘true and faithful’ alone to the nation. As will be explained shortly, only acts under the laws of naturalization can remove an alien’s allegiance to some other country under United States law.

    “Additionally, Trumbull argued Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction for the reason the United States deals with them through treaties. This is also exactly how the United States deals with aliens from other nations as well; they enter into treaties with outer countries to define legal rights of their citizens while within the limits of the United States and vice versa. Example: A treaty with China prohibited the United States from naturalizing Chinese citizens.

    “Sen. Trumbull further added, “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Sen. Jacob Howard agreed:

    “[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

    “This remark by Sen. Howard places this earlier comment of his on who is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” into proper context: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

    “What Sen. Howard is saying here is citizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that required that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States – just as is required to become a naturalized citizen. It does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first complied with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.

    [end of quote]

    Paulie, you are mixing up the various definitions of ‘jurisdiction’ which exist. Stop it! Unless you’re a lawyer, or a paralegal, or you’ve studied the law extensively, you simply don’t possess the legal knowledge which explains the situation.

  22. paulie

    The vast majority of undocumented workers have no allegiance to the nations they are fleeing. They only haven’t renounced them legally because Congress invented for itself powers to limit legal migration and prevented them from officially doing so.

    It makes no sense to claim that undocumented workers are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US because they routinely and obviously are in ways that would be completely illegal to apply to diplomats, tourists, or soldiers at war. I reject your claim that only experts, much less licensed ones, are allowed to consider these issues.

  23. jim

    Paulie, you said:
    “The vast majority of undocumented workers have no allegiance to the nations they are fleeing. They only haven’t renounced them legally because Congress invented for itself powers to limit legal migration and prevented them from officially doing so.”
    “It makes no sense to claim that undocumented workers are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US because they routinely and obviously are in ways that would be completely illegal to apply to diplomats, tourists, or soldiers at war. I reject your claim that only experts, much less licensed ones, are allowed to consider these issues.”

    Yet again, you’re not thinking like a lawyer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNI9CwBg6RA

    The “allegiance” mentioned above is based on the traditional meaning of the concept, developed in law over a period of hundreds of years. Such an “allegiance” can be renounced, but in special situations, such as when a person seeks to naturalize his citizenship to a different country. Merely walking across a border doesn’t do that, at least when there are immigration laws in effect in the target country.
    America fought a war, the war of 1812, because British ships were stopping American ships on the high seas, and “impressing” (actually, kidnapping) any male citizen on board who had an English accent. In effect, the British position is that these people were ‘owned’ by Britain, and could not have given up their citizenship unless Britain had approved, which they didn’t.
    The 14th Amendment was written to recognize the situation. it grants citizenship to a child of foreigners if they have no ‘allegiance’ to their country of origin. Prior to about 1923, and the anti-immigration laws America passed about that time, just about anybody could enter and become an American citizen. After that, they couldn’t, at least not with the ease and numbers that had previously been happening

    Your use of the term “jurisdiction” is still terribly uninformed.

    And I didn’t say you couldn’t “consider these issues”. Just that your statements will be irrelevant and ignorant when you don’t understand the legal context on this obscure subject. You clearly didn’t and don’t know the history of this matter: Obviously, you weren’t alive when the 14th Amendment was written and ratified, and you probably haven’t read the legal history of that amendment.

  24. trying again

    @trying again 1:47 pm

    You meant “laws of the nation” not “laws of the nations.” You are a horrible typist.

  25. trying again

    @jim Aug25 7:58pm

    You are very confused. The clause prohibits Congress both from regulating the “importation” of slaves AND the “migration” of free people before the year 1808. Slaves don’t migrate, they are imported. Migrants migrate. It is a conditional time-sensitive restriction on the previous grant of power giving Congress the power to define and & punish crimes agains the Law of Nations. Hope this helps.

  26. trying again

    @jim Aug27 12:12pm

    re — ” The thing that currently allows children of illegals to be citizens is the (current) law, ”

    Even this is too generous. The statutory language is actually the same as that of the 14th amendment. It is only the interpretation of the statutory language that has changed in last 30 or 50 years. You could make the argument that Congress need not even need to change the statute. A simple executive order or memorandum of understanding about the correct defintion of “jurisdiction” could change the situation.

  27. Andy Craig

    The Law of Nations refers to things all nations are *obligated* to do under what we’d today call international law. So: punish piracy, have extradition procedures, not let US territory be used to launch a military attack against another nation, protect foreign ambassadors, respect and follow normal treaty and diplomatic procedures, and in today’s post-Nuremberg world also to prosecute crimes against humanity: genocide, torture, ethnic cleansing, slavery and human trafficking, and the like.

    There are plenty of nations (Argentina, for one) that don’t have any caps or quotas on immigration. Nobody argues they stand in violation of international law because of it, or aren’t really a nation. And they actually do conduct passport checks, turn people away for contagion or criminality, etc. But they don’t limit immigration, nobody gets told “You can’t come to Argentina because too many people from your home country already moved here this year.”

    The “migration or importation” line in the 1808 clause, was just to avoid shenanigans were somebody might try to argue the slave trade was one but not the other. The entirety of the clause is referring solely to the slave trade while carefully avoiding the use of the word “slavery.”

  28. paulie

    The “allegiance” mentioned above is based on the traditional meaning of the concept, developed in law over a period of hundreds of years. Such an “allegiance” can be renounced, but in special situations, such as when a person seeks to naturalize his citizenship to a different country. Merely walking across a border doesn’t do that, at least when there are immigration laws in effect in the target country.

    Only because you are not allowing them a way to renounce it and that in turn only because congress invented a right for itself.

    America fought a war, the war of 1812, because British ships were stopping American ships on the high seas, and “impressing” (actually, kidnapping) any male citizen on board who had an English accent. In effect, the British position is that these people were ‘owned’ by Britain, and could not have given up their citizenship unless Britain had approved, which they didn’t.

    Not sure why you bring this up. Is it because you think such absurd justifications have some kind of merit behind them? No person is legitimately owned by any regimes. Regimes are parasite gangs that declare their turf and try to enforce their claims with violence, no different than street gangs or organized crime families, only bigger and somewhat better organized.

    Prior to about 1923, and the anti-immigration laws America passed about that time, just about anybody could enter and become an American citizen. After that, they couldn’t, at least not with the ease and numbers that had previously been happening

    Because, due to at that time honestly admitted racism, congress invented for itself a power it did not have. And now you claim that people who are not being given a choice in the matter have allegiance to a foreign government. Neat no escape clause, but I don’t agree with it.

  29. paulie

    There are plenty of nations (Argentina, for one) that don’t have any caps or quotas on immigration. Nobody argues they stand in violation of international law because of it, or aren’t really a nation.

    USA before 1920s was a nation. And did not limit immigration, except briefly with the Chinese Exclusion Act. And even before that the US was a nation.

  30. jim

    Trying Again: This is from https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag8_user.html
    Notice that is refers to slavery and the importation of slaves. Somewhere, you got the idea that this clause also covered migration of free people. I have never heard that interpretation before.

    [quote begins]
    ARTICLE I
    LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
    Section 9. Clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    POWERS DENIED TO CONGRESS
    General Purpose of Section 9

    This section of the Constitution (containing eight clauses restricting or prohibiting legislation affecting the importation of slaves, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the enactment of bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the levying of taxes on exports, the granting of preference to ports of one State over another, the granting of titles of nobility, et cetera) is devoted to restraints upon the power of Congress and of the National Govern[p.345]ment,1683 and in no respect affects the States in the regulation of their domestic affairs.1684

    The above clause, which sanctioned the importation of slaves by the States for twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when considered with the section requiring escaped slaves to be returned to their masters, Art. IV, Sec. 1, cl. 3, was held by Chief Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford,1685 to show conclusively that such persons and their descendants were not embraced within the term “citizen” as used in the Constitution. Today, this ruling is interesting only as an historical curiosity.

  31. jim

    Quoting the article:
    “To the extent that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is about any actual issue, it is about opposition to immigration. Trump has, among other things, proposed deporting 11 million unauthorized immigrants currently in the United States, expressed support for reducing legal immigration levels, jeered at immigrant “anchor babies,” and called for an end to birthright citizenship, even though it is constitutionally required.”

    The author here is yet another one of those who casually omit the word “illegal” prior to the word “immigration”.
    And “birthright citizenship” is not “constitutionally required.” See http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
    People who forget (or never knew) the origins of the 14th Amendment simply don’t understand reality.

  32. jim

    in response to jim:

    Paulie, you said: “The vast majority of undocumented workers have no allegiance to the nations they are fleeing. They only haven’t renounced them legally because Congress invented for itself powers to limit legal migration and prevented them from officially doing so.” “It makes no sense to claim that undocumented workers are not subject to the […]

    The “allegiance” mentioned above is based on the traditional meaning of the concept, developed in law over a period of hundreds of years. Such an “allegiance” can be renounced, but in special situations, such as when a person seeks to naturalize his citizenship to a different country. Merely walking across a border doesn’t do that, at least when there are immigration laws in effect in the target country.

    Only because you are not allowing them a way to renounce it and that in turn only because congress invented a right for itself.

    My response: NO! They ARE indeed allowed a way to renounce it. It’s an application for immigration. It takes longer than some people want, and fewer people are allowed in than many people want, but it indeed exists. Congress didn’t “invent a right for itself”. It is allowed to decide who is a citizen, and who is not.

    “America fought a war, the war of 1812, because British ships were stopping American ships on the high seas, and “impressing” (actually, kidnapping) any male citizen on board who had an English accent. In effect, the British position is that these people were ‘owned’ by Britain, and could not have given up their citizenship unless Britain had approved, which they didn’t.

    Not sure why you bring this up. Is it because you think such absurd justifications have some kind of merit behind them? No person is legitimately owned by any regimes.

    My response: Are you merely PRETENDING that you don’t realize that things aren’t the way you’d like, and that it used to be, nations treated their people as their own property? I don’t like that, either, but I don’t try to deny that this was the way things were done.

    “Regimes are parasite gangs that declare their turf and try to enforce their claims with violence, no different than street gangs or organized crime families, only bigger and somewhat better organized.

    My response: I agree. But rather than merely complain, I invented a mechanism which will solve the problem. It’s called “Assassination Politics”. cryptome.org/ap.htm It actually will allow an ‘anarchy’ to be stable.

    Prior to about 1923, and the anti-immigration laws America passed about that time, just about anybody could enter and become an American citizen. After that, they couldn’t, at least not with the ease and numbers that had previously been happening

    Because, due to at that time honsely admitted racism, congress invented for itself a power it did not have.

    Be more specific. Are you saying that Congress didn’t have authority to decide who gets to come into this country?

    And now you claim that people who are not being given a choice in the matter have allegiance to a foreign government. Neat no escape clause, but I don’t agree with it.

    Like I said, an escape clause, just not one you’d like.

    =====================

    BTW, I am getting increasingly angry and the poorly-documented quoting features in independentpoliticalreport. If you don’t like the format of how I reply, that’s why. Make the system easy and useable, and I will use it.

  33. paulie

    My response: NO! They ARE indeed allowed a way to renounce it. It’s an application for immigration. It takes longer than some people want, and fewer people are allowed in than many people want, but it indeed exists.

    130 years average wait time for an unskilled worker from Mexico or Central America. So as a practical matter, no, they are not allowed a way to renounce it.

    Congress didn’t “invent a right for itself”. It is allowed to decide who is a citizen, and who is not.

    Yes it did. It can regulate naturalization, not immigration. It invented for itself the right to regulate immigration.

    you don’t realize that things aren’t the way you’d like, and that it used to be, nations treated their people as their own property? I don’t like that, either, but I don’t try to deny that this was the way things were done.

    I don’t see it as a justification for anything. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now.

    I agree. But rather than merely complain, I invented a mechanism which will solve the problem. It’s called “Assassination Politics”. cryptome.org/ap.htm It actually will allow an ‘anarchy’ to be stable.

    Cool! Evolving technology using blockchain and distributed peer to peer networks is going to make it a lot more practically feasible to implement.

    Be more specific. Are you saying that Congress didn’t have authority to decide who gets to come into this country?

    Yes, that is what I am saying. Unless they are an invading army, and they are not.

    BTW, I am getting increasingly angry and the poorly-documented quoting features in independentpoliticalreport. If you don’t like the format of how I reply, that’s why. Make the system easy and useable, and I will use it.

    Sorry, I have no control over that.

    You can anything from simple quote marks to HTML markup such as italics or blockquote. Almost everyone else who comments here has managed to come up with ways to converse that allow your comments to be distinguishable from ones you respond to. For anyone who doesn’t know any HTML and isn’t willing to learn, simple quote marks are fine. Using simple HTML tags makes it even easier to distinguish visually.

  34. jim

    “Congress didn’t “invent a right for itself”. It is allowed to decide who is a citizen, and who is not.

    “Yes it did. It can regulate naturalization, not immigration. It invented for itself the right to regulate immigration.

    If you’re taking that position, there are large numbers of laws that Congress has written that are not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution.

    “I agree. But rather than merely complain, I invented a mechanism which will solve the problem. It’s called “Assassination Politics”. cryptome.org/ap.htm It actually will allow an ‘anarchy’ to be stable.

    “Cool! Evolving technology using blockchain and distributed peer to peer networks is going to make it a lot more practically feasible to implement.

    A lot of people (mostly government employees) will definitely not like it.

    “Be more specific. Are you saying that Congress didn’t have authority to decide who gets to come into this country?

    “Yes, that is what I am saying. Unless they are an invading army, and they are not.

    So, you’re saying that because the US constitution didn’t SPECIFICALLY say Congress could regulate this (you claim), Congress can’t do that? Well, look at a 1943 Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    I think it’s a horrible decision, and some might call it the high-water mark for regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

    Anyway, can you find a cite for anybody who agrees with you about Congress NOT being entitled to regulate immigration? Most people would laugh…

  35. Jed Ziggler Post author

    I agree with him. Congress has no authority whatsoever to regulate immigration, it is a natural human right. The constitution was written with an intention to preserve the laws of nature, not create laws of men.

  36. paulie

    “Congress didn’t “invent a right for itself”. It is allowed to decide who is a citizen, and who is not.

    See above. Immigration is different from citizenship. Congress can regulate who becomes a citizen and how. It invented for itself the right to limit immigration.

    If you’re taking that position, there are large numbers of laws that Congress has written that are not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution.

    There are. And they are unconstitutional. The courts and established pecedents have completely mangled constitutional limits. I would think a legal scholar like you would know that.

  37. paulie

    A lot of people (mostly government employees) will definitely not like it.

    Yep. But I don’t believe they will be able to stop it, although they will certainly try.

    So, you’re saying that because the US constitution didn’t SPECIFICALLY say Congress could regulate this (you claim),

    Nothing to claim. It doesn’t. The various shoehorn excuses as to how it does are BS.

    Congress can’t do that?

    If the constitution was not effectively nullified, no, it couldn’t.

    Well, look at a 1943 Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    Why? I already know the courts have massively misinterpreted and broken down constitutional limits on government power.

    Anyway, can you find a cite for anybody who agrees with you about Congress NOT being entitled to regulate immigration?

    I could cite lots of people. Not sure it’s worth the time to find the citations, but Tom Knapp is among several people who have made that point and argued it in some detail in past threads.

    Most people would laugh…

    So what? Most people have no clue what the constitutional limits on government are supposed to be or that the vast majority of what the feds do is outside hose limits thanks to the game of telephone that courts have played with the constitution ever since it was written.

  38. Andy Craig

    You don’t get to object that he only opposes “illegal” immigration when the candidate in question wants to impose an immediate and total halt on *legal* immigration as well.

  39. Jim

    Cite the source for Trump’s statement that says he wants a complete halt to ALL legal immigration.

  40. Jim

    so, that DOESN’T stop all immigration, just issuance of green cards. I figured you had that wrong somehow.

  41. jim

    Andy Craig:
    You said, “What, exactly, do you think “green cards” are?”
    A “Green card” is the common term for an authorization for a foreigner to live permanently in American, AND to work in America. According to that quote, he is only stopping issuance of Green Cards for people outside of America.

  42. Andy Craig

    Immigration is, by definition, those who intend to live in the U.S. on a permanent basis. The only legal mechanism to do that is through Permanent Lawful Resident status, colloquially known as a green card. Still issuing a handful to those already legally in the country and eligible to apply (he doesn’t actually specify that, but granting that as your generous interpretation of what he was implying) doesn’t make it any less of a halt, it’s just one that comes phased-in with a grandfather clause.

    If you stop issuing green cards, that is axiomatically a complete halt on legal immigration. He does propose to merely increase prevailing wage requirements so as to de facto end H1-B “high-skilled” visas instead of de jure ending them, and he says nothing at all about the legal guest worker program for “low-skilled” labor (the notoriously limited H2 visas). But neither of those things are “immigration” – legally *immigrating* to the U.S. means getting a green card.

  43. paulie

    You don’t get to object that he only opposes “illegal” immigration when the candidate in question wants to impose an immediate and total halt on *legal* immigration as well.

    Good point. Trump is just a fascist turd, basically.

  44. jim

    You said, “Good point. Trump is just a fascist turd, basically.”

    Are you aware what the Mexican laws on immigration are?

  45. jim

    Except that if just about every nation has the same type of laws America has (or are stricter) you are being very selective about pointing out how Trump is “just a fascist turd, basically”. If EVERY nation is “just a fascist turd”, then SAY SO. Don’t pretend that Trump is worse.
    And remember that the current American immigration laws are a product of both Republicans and Democrats, over the last 50 years. Nearly entirely, Trump is merely asking for those laws to be ENFORCED. (If they were actually enforced, we wouldn’t have an “immigration problem” today.)
    A few days ago, I found an article on the evolution of the Democrat party platform over the last 35 years, that during the large majority of that time, did not seem to consider “immigration” to be an issue!
    http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/26/when-the-entire-democratic-party-was-lik

    “When the Entire Democratic Party Was Like Donald Trump”

    Go ahead and declare the entire world to be “just a fascist turd”. But don’t just pretend that only your CURRENT political enemies are that. That would be hypocritical and a double-standard.

  46. paulie

    Except that if just about every nation has the same type of laws America has (or are stricter)

    Not even close.

    And remember that the current American immigration laws are a product of both Republicans and Democrats, over the last 50 years.

    Shame on both of them.

    Nearly entirely, Trump is merely asking for those laws to be ENFORCED.

    He’s asking for a lot more than that and bad laws should not be enforced, they should be both flouted and repealed.

    If they were actually enforced, we wouldn’t have an “immigration problem” today.

    The only “immigration problem” we have is illegitimate regime edicts getting in the way of migration freedom.

  47. Jim

    You do concede that Americas immigration laws AREN’T being enforced today, right? THAT is obviously in the direction of what you’d like, since you don’t like those laws.

  48. paulie

    You do concede that Americas immigration laws AREN’T being enforced today, right?

    Why would I concede that? Maybe these illegitimate edicts aren’t enforced as much as you want them to be, but there are millions of deportations, beatings, murders, arrests, detentions, rapes, robberies, and incidents of harassment (official and otherwise) which take place only because of these so-called “laws.” Millions of people forced to live in the shadows as semi-criminals, often afraid to seek legal redress for wrongs done to them and their families and communities, frequently exploited in numerous ways, all due to the regime’s anti-migrant edicts. And yet somehow this isn’t enough for you?

  49. Mark Herd for U.S. Senate 2016 (CA)

    Jim wrote “Trump is merely asking for those laws to be ENFORCED. (If they were actually enforced, we wouldn’t have an “immigration problem” today.)”

    Jim, Trump is a racist pig who wants to deport AMERICAN BORN CITIZENS. Which law is he enforcing, the “Im a pos redneck who has my head up my ass deportation law?” What else are spewing today?

  50. jim

    You didn’t actually comment on this, so I’m positng it again:

    Except that if just about every nation has the same type of laws America has (or are stricter) you are being very selective about pointing out how Trump is “just a fascist turd, basically”. If EVERY nation is “just a fascist turd”, then SAY SO. Don’t pretend that Trump is worse.
    And remember that the current American immigration laws are a product of both Republicans and Democrats, over the last 50 years. Nearly entirely, Trump is merely asking for those laws to be ENFORCED. (If they were actually enforced, we wouldn’t have an “immigration problem” today.)
    A few days ago, I found an article on the evolution of the Democrat party platform over the last 35 years, that during the large majority of that time, did not seem to consider “immigration” to be an issue!
    http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/26/when-the-entire-democratic-party-was-lik

    “When the Entire Democratic Party Was Like Donald Trump”

    Go ahead and declare the entire world to be “just a fascist turd”. But don’t just pretend that only your CURRENT political enemies are that. That would be hypocritical and a double-standard.

  51. jim

    This is from “When the Entire Democrat Part was like Donald Trump”:

    “[W]e must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years […], Washington talked tough but failed to act….[O]ur borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again.”

    “OK, so the headline gives it away, but that’s the Democratic Party’s official platform for 1996. Mirroring that year’s Republican platform, which was arguably the most stringent anti-illegal-immigration tract in the GOP’s modern history, the Dem document is filled with tough talk and premature victory laps:”

    “President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported.”

    I say again, Paulie, don’t just hurl criticisms at people you’ve identified as your political enemies. Apply those criticisms to everyone, in a consistent manner. You don’t seem to even admit your bias when challenged.

  52. Andy Craig

    “You do concede that Americas immigration laws AREN’T being enforced today, right? THAT is obviously in the direction of what you’d like, since you don’t like those laws.”

    Currently the United States deports ~400k people a year and spends more on immigration enforcement than every other federal law enforcement agency (FBI, etc.) combined.

    If that’s what “unenforced” looks like to you, then the every law on the book goes unenforced.

  53. paulie

    Currently the United States deports ~400k people a year and spends more on immigration enforcement than every other federal law enforcement agency (FBI, etc.) combined.

    If that’s what “unenforced” looks like to you, then the every law on the book goes unenforced.

    Yep. As I already explained earlier.

  54. jim

    Andy Craig, you said, “Currently the United States deports ~400k people a year and spends more on immigration enforcement than every other federal law enforcement agency (FBI, etc.) combined.”

    Are you distinguishing between “turned away at the border” or “actual deportation”. There’s been yet another Obama scandal, where he has re-defined the word “deport” to include what, in previous years, had been not classified as such. (This is how Obama lies, claiming “more deportations” than previous jurisdictions.)
    Also, since there are probably 20 million illegals in America today (that figure of 11/12 million is complete nonsense), anything under a deportation level of 5 million per year is just playing games. If there were indeed an actual reduction of 5 million, I would agree that they are actually enforcing immigration laws.
    Consider a reward of $250 per illegal if you identify and locate them: Better yet, that reward would be payable out of the personal pocket of any official who fails to remove them within 30 days, and it would then repeat. THAT would result in REAL immigration-law enforcement. It would be very cheap, too!

  55. paulie

    Consider that no human being is illegal. Consider that illegitimate edicts are not laws. Consider that illegitimate edicts should be disobeyed while we work to repeal them. Consider doing everything possible to undermine the immigration “laws.” Consider ending immigration quotas and red tape. Consider that we would be better off if we did. Consider that the regime is not the legitimate owner or co-owner of the whole country, and that only legitimate property owners have the right to decide who is trespassing and who is a welcome guest, tenant, customer, employee, etc.

    The war on migrants is no more legitimate than the war on drugs. Stepping up either of them will only make us poorer, less free, more violence ridden, and more tyrannized.

  56. jim

    Do you believe in the concept of private property? (generally, libertarians do). If I own a piece of land, should I be entitled to exclude people from it? If you agree yes, shouldn’t a group (potentially quite large) agree cooperatively to exclude people from it?
    You (and I) may disagree with the current government, but that doesn’t mean that the principle is invalid.

  57. Andy Craig

    The change in classification happened during the Bush administration. And Obama has presided over a large increase even using constant categorization criteria. And there isn’t any obvious reason why being caught 10 miles from the border should count differently than being caught 100 miles from the border anyway.

    I’m sure you’re being honest when you say your sick fantasy of hunting humans for bounty and mass-scale ethnic cleansing is the only thing that would satisfy you. Back in reality, the United States already wastes an insane amount of money on kicking people out of the country. Even setting aside the gross inhumanity of your’s and Trump’s desires, just on the fiscal side alone it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars directly, plus the massive damage it would do to the economy, wiping out entire industries. And as has been discussed at length, it isn’t possible to deport *all* unauthorized immigrants while both *not* breaking up families and *not* deporting U.S. citizen children. You can’t do all three, which is why Trump’s answer is to deport U.S. citizens.

    Note the irony: you’re demanding a massive government operation to locate and round up millions of people without permission slips to exist in the U.S., while at the same time complaining that the government can’t even produce an accurate estimate of their numbers.

  58. paulie

    If I own a piece of land, should I be entitled to exclude people from it?

    Yes. For example, if I am a landlord or employer of people that the regime falsely considers “illegal,” I should be able to exclude agents of that regime from interfering with my tenants, employees, customers, friends, neighbors, family, fuck buddies, or whatever they may happen to be.

    If you agree yes, shouldn’t a group (potentially quite large) agree cooperatively to exclude people from it?

    Sure, as long as 100% of them agree, with no exceptions.

    You and your brother shouldn’t get to vote on who my employees, tenants, etc should be, any more than what I have for breakfast or what color clothes I wear that day.

  59. Andy Craig

    It’s always funny to watch supposed conservatives or libertarians try to defend the notion that immigration is akin to trespassing, and inevitably end up defending the only way that theory works: the Marxist proposition that all property is ultimately collectively owned by the state.

    Kind of like how Murray Rothbard et al tried to make the ridiculous argument that immigration restrictions are justified because in a 100% private world owners of roads, dockyards, and airports could choose to voluntarily exclude foreigners (not non-citizens, since everybody would be a non-citizen)… without providing the slightest inclination as to why they would do such a crazy thing.

  60. paulie

    It’s always funny to watch supposed conservatives or libertarians try to defend the notion that immigration is akin to trespassing, and inevitably end up defending the only way that theory works: the Marxist proposition that all property is ultimately collectively owned by the state.

    It would be even funnier if it wasn’t so pathetically sad.

  61. Andy Craig

    openborders.info is a great operation. I often refer people to their explanation of the oft-bastardized Milton Friedman quote about the welfare state and immigration. The upshot is that Milton was actually arguing that *illegal* immigration is better than legal immigration (I don’t agree, but that’s the point he was making.)

    http://openborders.info/friedman-immigration-welfare-state/

  62. paulie

    I say again, Paulie, don’t just hurl criticisms at people you’ve identified as your political enemies. Apply those criticisms to everyone, in a consistent manner.

    What does “shame on both (Democrats and Republicans)” mean to you?

    You don’t seem to even admit your bias when challenged.

    Of course I do. My bias is well known and readily acknowledged. I’m severely biased towards all our freedoms, all the time.

    And while we are on the subject of the LP’s icon….

    Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
    Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

    “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
    With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

  63. jim

    I decided to post the whole article:

    When the Entire Democratic Party Was Like Donald Trump
    Read (and weep at) the 1996 party platform on immigration, crime, drugs and “zero tolerance”
    Matt Welch|Aug. 26, 2015 5:51 pm
    8768 344 96
    Spritz
    That border wasn’t gonna secure itself! ||| AFP
    AFP
    Here’s your who-said-it of the day:

    [W]e must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years […], Washington talked tough but failed to act….[O]ur borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again.

    OK, so the headline gives it away, but that’s the Democratic Party’s official platform for 1996. Mirroring that year’s Republican platform, which was arguably the most stringent anti-illegal-immigration tract in the GOP’s modern history, the Dem document is filled with tough talk and premature victory laps:

    President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported.

    So glad that problem got solved!

    The whole platform is a masterpiece of Clintonian triangulation, bluster, and illiberalism, much of which has reverse-resonance today. Mere sentences after famously (and inaccurately, alas!) declaring that “Today’s Democratic Party knows that the era of big government is over,” the document goes on a rights- and federalism-shredding tough-on-crime bender, one that had the full contemporaneous support of 2016 candidates Hillary Clinton and (if he runs!) Joe Biden. A sampling (I will bold some bits throughout):

    The ecstasy of victory. ||| Getty Images
    Getty Images
    Bill Clinton promised to turn things around, and that is exactly what he did. After a long hard fight, President Clinton beat back fierce Republican opposition, led by Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich, to answer the call of America’s police officers and pass the toughest Crime Bill in history. The Democratic Party under President Clinton is putting more police on the streets and tougher penalties on the books; we are taking guns off the streets and working to steer young people away from crime and gangs and drugs in the first place. And it is making a difference. In city after city and town after town, crime rates are finally coming down. […]

    The Crime Bill is putting 100,000 new police officers on the street. We deplore cynical Republican attempts to undermine our promise to America to put 100,000 new police officers on the street. We pledge to stand up for our communities and stand with our police officers by opposing any attempt to repeal or weaken this effort. […]

    We believe that people who break the law should be punished, and people who commit violent crimes should be punished severely. President Clinton made three-strikes-you’re-out the law of the land, to ensure that the most dangerous criminals go to jail for life, with no chance of parole. We established the death penalty for nearly 60 violent crimes, including murder of a law enforcement officer, and we signed a law to limit appeals. […]

    We provided almost $8 billion in new funding to help states build new prison cells so violent offenders serve their full sentences. We call on the states to meet the President’s challenge and guarantee that serious violent criminals serve at least 85 percent of their sentence.

    How about some choice Zero Tolerance?

    Uniformity always works. ||| Pink Floyd
    Pink Floyd
    The Democratic Party understands what the police have been saying for years: The best way to fight crime is to prevent it. That is why we fought for drug-education and gang-prevention programs in our schools. We support well thought out, well organized, highly supervised youth programs to provide young people with a safe and healthy alternative to hanging out on the streets. We made it a federal crime for any person under the age of 18 to possess a handgun except when supervised by an adult. Democrats fought to pass, and President Clinton ordered states to impose, zero tolerance for guns in school, requiring schools to expel for one year any student who brings a gun to school.

    At the same time, when young people cross the line, they must be punished. When young people commit serious violent crimes, they should be prosecuted like adults. We established boot camps for young non-violent offenders. If Senator Dole and the Republicans are serious about fighting juvenile crime, they should listen to America’s police officers and support the steps Democrats have taken, because they are making a difference, and then they should join us as we work to do more.

    We want parents to bring order to their children’s lives and teach them right from wrong, and we want to make it easier for them to take that responsibility. We support schools that adopt school uniform policies, to promote discipline and respect. We support community-based curfews to keep kids off the street after a certain time, so they’re safe from harm and away from trouble. We urge schools and communities to enforce truancy laws: Young people belong in school, not on the street.

    And you just know where this is going on drugs….

    The war’s over, soldier. You can go home. And fuck off. ||| AFP
    AFP
    We must keep drugs off our streets and out of our schools. President Clinton and the Democratic Party have waged an aggressive war on drugs. The Crime Bill established the death penalty for drug kingpins. The President signed a directive requiring drug testing of anyone arrested for a federal crime, and he challenged states to do the same for state offenders. We established innovative drug courts which force drug users to get treatment or go to jail. We stood firm against Republican efforts to gut the Safe and Drug Free Schools effort that supports successful drug-education programs like D.A.R.E. The Clinton Administration went to the Supreme Court to support the right of schools to test athletes for drugs. The President launched Operation Safe Home to protect the law-abiding residents of public housing from violent criminals and drug dealers who use their homes as a base for illegal activities. We support the President’s decision to tell those who commit crimes and peddle drugs in public housing: You will get no second chance to threaten your neighbors; it is one strike and you’re out. We are making progress. Overall drug use in America is dropping; the number of Americans who use cocaine has dropped 30 percent since 1992. Unfortunately casual drug use by young people continues to climb. We must redouble our efforts against drug abuse everywhere, especially among our children.

    Earlier this year, the President appointed General Barry McCaffrey to lead the nation’s war on drugs. General McCaffrey is implementing an aggressive four part strategy to reach young children and prevent drug use in the first place; to catch and punish drug users and dealers; to provide treatment to those who need help; and to cut drugs off at the source before they cross the border and pollute our neighborhoods. But every adult in America must take responsibility to set a good example, and to teach children that drugs are wrong, they are illegal, and they are deadly.

    It’s a gruesome document; well worth a read.
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29611

    Matt Welch is editor in chief of Reason magazine and co-author with Nick Gillespie of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong With America.

    Follow Matt Welch on Twitter

    [end of quote]

    Like I say, again: Don’t try to pretend that Trump alone (or even “all the Republicans”) are the problem. The Democrats deserve at least “equal billing” in the disaster.

  64. paulie

    I decided to post the whole article:

    Why? I already had read it even before the first time you posted the link. I addressed the points it makes more than once. By contrast I linked several articles and you completely failed to address most of the points they raised. Please don’t do that again, or I’ll edit it down to just the link.

    A link or short excerpt is sufficient. Full articles should be posted very rarely, if at all.

    Like I say, again: Don’t try to pretend that Trump alone (or even “all the Republicans”) are the problem.

    Who is doing this pretending? I explicitly said “shame on both (Ds and Rs)” more than once now.

    It’s true that currently most Democrats are less bad than most Republicans on this issue, but they’re still really bad, and it’s absolutely true that Democrats have had a lot to do with limiting migration freedom over the years. It’s also true that Trump is far from the only Republican demagoguing migration issues right now, but as the links I posted earlier show he does kick it up to an extra level of hysteria.

  65. Andy Craig

    As usual, Ben Swann’s attempt to report on a legal matter results in him utterly butchering both the facts and the law.

  66. Andy Craig

    Donald Trump was running for President in 2000, so it isn’t that surprising the Simpsons would make a joke about it.

  67. paulie

    https://books.google.com/books?id=t8oLAAAAYAAJ&printsec=titlepage&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

    The Expatriation Act of 1868 led President Ulysses S. Grant to write in 1873, that the United States had “led the way in the overthrow of the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance”.

    In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

    -is born in the United States
    -of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
    -whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
    -whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
    becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

  68. paulie

    Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 498. The debate on the Civil Rights Act contained the following exchange:

    Mr. Cowan: “I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?”
    Mr. Trumbull: “Undoubtedly.”

    Mr. Trumbull: “I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”
    Mr. Cowan: “The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.”
    Mr. Trumbull: “If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.”

    Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2891-2. During the debate on the Amendment, Senator John Conness of California declared, “The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate that same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage, whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal Civil Rights with other citizens.”.

    See also http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/veto-of-the-civil-rights-bill/

  69. paulie

    http://www.nfap.com/pdf/NFAPPolicyBrief.BirthrightCitizenship.March2012.pdf

    O N A L F O U N D A T I O N F O R A M E R I C A N P O L I C Y N A T I O N A L F O U N D A T I O N F O R A M E R I C A N P O L I C Y
    N F A P P O L I C Y B R I E F » M A R C H 2 0 1 2
    T H E C O S T T O A M E R I C A N S A N D A M E R I C A O F E N D I N G
    B I R T H R I G H T C I T I Z E N S H I P
    B Y M A R G A R E T S T O C K
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    In recent years, calls to change the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which guarantees U.S.
    citizenship to most American-born babies, have been a regular feature of the political landscape. A change to
    the Citizenship Clause superficially appeals to some who have not considered the cost and implications of
    verifying the immigration or citizenship status of every parent of every child born in the United States each year.
    Based on current costs to verify the citizenship status of children born overseas to U.S. citizens, changing the
    Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment will cost new parents in the United States approximately
    $600 in government fees to prove the citizenship status of each baby and likely an additional $600 to $1,000 in
    legal fees. This represents a “tax” of $1,200 to $1,600 on each baby born in the United States, while at the
    same time doing little to deter illegal entry to the United States. Direct fees to the federal government would
    reach $2.4 billion a year, based on current estimates.
    There are many costs to Americans and American society of changing the Fourteenth Amendment’s
    Citizenship Clause. Among the costs of changing the Citizenship Clause:

    It’s a pdf so sorry for spacing issues when copy/pasting. Read more at the link.

  70. jim

    “In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who
    -is born in the United States
    -of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
    -whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
    -whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
    becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.”

    The SC makes decisions based on: 1. The facts of the case. 2. The U.S. Constitution. and 3. The law.

    In 1898, there was essentially no such thing as an “illegal alien”. All people who showed up at Ellis Island (new York) and San Francisco were accepted as new citizens, with rare exceptions.

    The Wong Kim Ark decision wasn’t wrong: It was based on the then-current law. That decision (as are all SC decisions) are based on LAW. In some cases, if the LAW changes, the applicability and relevance of a given SC decision is obsoleted. You can’t claim that the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898 applies to any given situation after (for example) the 1965 update of immigration law.

  71. paulie

    In 1898, there was essentially no such thing as an “illegal alien”. All people who showed up at Ellis Island (new York) and San Francisco were accepted as new citizens, with rare exceptions.

    However as previously explained, in the 1920s, for what were then widely and openly admitted racist reasons Congress invented for itself a power to limit immigration outside the scope of regulation of naturalization. That’s what led to any problem. Those quotas should be scrapped, and in the meantime they should be widely disobeyed and ridiculed.

    You can’t claim that the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898 applies to any given situation after (for example) the 1965 update of immigration law.

    Sure I can. See again:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=t8oLAAAAYAAJ&printsec=titlepage&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

    “The Expatriation Act of 1868 led President Ulysses S. Grant to write in 1873, that the United States had “led the way in the overthrow of the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance”.”

  72. Andy Craig

    The argument rejected in Wong Kim Ark is exactly the same theory under which children of illegal immigrants can supposedly be excluded.

    After the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, U.S. Customs attempted to deny Wong re-entry into the country (he had previously had no such problem visiting China and returning). Their theory was that because his parents were Chinese nationals, he was born “subject to the jurisdiction of” China even though he had been born in the U.S. Therefore he wasn’t a U.S. Citizen, he was an illegal immigrant who couldn’t enter the country under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

    That’s what the court rejected. That’s the exact same argument and, for all intents and purposes, the same fact pattern being proposed today. The Supreme Court wouldn’t even bother hearing it, it’s such well-settled law it would never get to them.

  73. Starchild

    A few thoughts on a couple arguments I saw being made in this thread (rather than quoting directly, I’ll paraphrase here to boil them down to what I believe are their essences)…

    (1) People have an allegiance to whatever jurisdiction they were born into, and cannot renounce this allegiance themselves, only by asking government permission.

    This is an extremely un-libertarian argument that puts State power ahead of individual rights. It’s fundamentally little different than the medieval concept of serfdom, in which the serf was tied to the land. To argue that a person cannot choose his or her own country, only governments can choose it for them, is to advocate that we sacrifice a tremendous amount of personal freedom to the control of whoever happens to be in power in any given jurisdiction at any given time. The “Laws of Nations” do not trump individual freedom and human rights.

    (2) The issue that people like Donald Trump have isn’t with immigration, only illegal immigration.

    Nonsense. There is a very simple, inexpensive way to end all “illegal” immigration immediately. In fact it would save billions of dollars a year in government spending. Simply repeal or stop enforcing the unconstitutional anti-immigration statutes, and there will be no more “illegal” immigrants entering the United States. But people like Trump never propose this solution, because upholding the laws is not their real motivation in attacking “illegals”. Going after migrants for “breaking the law” just makes a convenient fig leaf, because many people who don’t want to openly and directly defend bigotry are still comfortable saying “You have to obey the law!” even when “the law” is itself obviously rooted in bigotry. If the U.S. government’s anti-immigrant statutes didn’t exist, they would be clamoring for them to be created.

  74. Starchild

    A few thoughts on a couple arguments I saw being made in this thread (rather than quoting directly, I’ll paraphrase here to boil them down to what I believe are their essences)…

    (1) People have an allegiance to whatever jurisdiction they were born into, and cannot renounce this allegiance themselves, only by asking government permission.

    This is an extremely un-libertarian argument that puts State power ahead of individual rights. It’s fundamentally little different than the medieval concept of serfdom, in which the serf was tied to the land. To argue that a person cannot choose his or her own country, only governments can choose it for them, is to advocate that we sacrifice a tremendous amount of personal freedom to the control of whoever happens to be in power in any given jurisdiction at any given time. The “Laws of Nations” do not trump individual freedom and human rights.

    (2) The issue that people like Donald Trump have isn’t with immigration, only illegal immigration.

    Nonsense. There is a very simple, inexpensive way to end all “illegal” immigration immediately. In fact it would save billions of dollars a year in government spending. Simply repeal or stop enforcing the unconstitutional anti-immigration statutes, and there will be no more “illegal” immigrants entering the United States. But people like Trump never propose this solution, because upholding the laws is not their real motivation in attacking “illegals”. Going after migrants for “breaking the law” just makes a convenient fig leaf, because many people who don’t want to openly and directly defend bigotry are still comfortable saying “You have to obey the law!” even when “the law” is itself obviously rooted in bigotry. If the U.S. government’s anti-immigrant statutes didn’t exist, they would be clamoring for them to be created.

  75. jim

    I’m sorry, Andy, but you clearly know little of the law. If you know the law, you’d know what “Shepardizing” means, for example. You said:
    “The argument rejected in Wong Kim Ark is exactly the same theory under which children of illegal immigrants can supposedly be excluded.

    After the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, U.S. Customs attempted to deny Wong re-entry into the country (he had previously had no such problem visiting China and returning). Their theory was that because his parents were Chinese nationals, he was born “subject to the jurisdiction of” China even though he had been born in the U.S. Therefore he wasn’t a U.S. Citizen, he was an illegal immigrant who couldn’t enter the country under the Chinese Exclusion Act.”

    This is from the Wong Kim Ark decision:
    :Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.
    3 Pet. 155. “The children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens.” 3 Pet. 156.
    Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”
    [end of quote]

    Pay particular attention to the sentence ” that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”

    Remember, in 1898, when the Wong Kim Ark decision was issued, and at the time his parents lived in America, they were LEGAL residents. And, of course, there was virtually no such thing as being ILLEGAL residents. I also believe that “under the protection of the government” is incompatible with that of an illegal alien subsequent to the laws passed in about 1923, but that situation did not exist as of 1898: The Supreme Court can’t be expected to consider hypotheticals and rule on them!!!

    Notice, also, the clause “and owing a temporary allegiance thereto: What do you think that means?

    I am quite confident that a Supreme Court hearing the case today of an illegal alien, even if he is considered ‘resident’, is a DISTINGUISHABLE case from the Wong Kim Ark case. The Wong Kim Ark decision is long, but it was definitive for the facts and law of that case, at that time.
    Things, however, have changed.

  76. paulie

    I did. Not sure why it got lost in translation. Maybe something to do with how google books formulates URLs? Not sure how I would find it again. You could maybe try searching for the quote as a search term?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *