some of the signers violated the constitution in other ways, it does
not matter if they knew what the constitution meant anyway they still
violated the
constitution.
Besides it does not matter so much what they intened for the
constitution to mean, it is the legal words that count. Some of the
founders and antifederalist were slavehowners even more were racist
it is likely many of those that were racist and slaveowners would
approve of an federal unconstitutional act of not allowing nonwhites
to immigrant into the country, they might trust their state " to do
the right thing" but they did not trust other states. Even in the
very early stages of our country the politicans were on a slippery
slope of diluting the constitution.--- In
[email protected], "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As I stated the first immigration act was passed in Washington's
> first administration, when virtually all of the signers were still
alive
> and held the Constitution in recent memory, as you would of events
> which happened in the last decade. I am unaware of any objection
> to that act, even by anti-federalists such as Patrick Henry, George
> Mason or anyone. If you or anyone else reading this response have
> any evidence of any objection please be so kind as to share it with
us.
>
> For life and liberty,
> David Macko
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 8:46 PM
> Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Immigration
>
>
> > The first part has nothing to do with immgration only
naturalzation
> > which is giving citizenship to a person not borned here, the last
> > part has to do with Slaves( althought an argument can be made
that
> > the constitution did not reconize slavery), indentures servants,
and
> > possibly prison labor but it does not specify free immigrants,
the
> > cue is the last part with the tax imposed on the importation. You
> > don't import free people. Migration and Importation means the
same
> > type of people that the states at the time of the ratification of
the
> > Constitution thought proper, they are imported from other
countries
> > and these same typeof people that can be imported Migrate by
going
> > from state to state not from another country, free people are not
> > imported so it does not apply to free immigrants, if the founders
> > really wanted the federal government to control immigration they
> > should have specified immigration in the constitution so Congress
> > comitted an unconstitutional act even back in the early years if
it
> > outlawed immigration of free non white people and free white
> > women.Congress was the lawbreaker even then.--- In
> > [email protected], "David Macko" <dmacko@> wrote:
> >>
> >> It is a federal constitutional issue.
> >> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4:
> >> "Congress shall have power ... to establish an
> >> uniform rule of naturalization..."
> >> Article 1 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 1808 ..."
> >> As early as Washington's first administration, Congress
> >> otherwise limited immigration to free White males over 21.
> >> Congress banned importation of Blacks on January 1, 1808.
> >>
> >> For life and liberty,
> >> David Macko
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "terry12622000" <cottondrop@>
> >> To: <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 8:04 PM
> >> Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Immigration
> >>
> >>
> >> > First off immigration is not a constitutional federal issue,
> > Second
> >> > it is a property rights issue. The bill in Georgia not
allowing
> >> > immigrants social services if they could not provide
> > documentation
> >> > would be libertarian almost, it would be libertarian if the
state
> >> > government returned the taxes payed by those people to them.
The
> >> > part of the law to punish employers is not libertarian.--- In
> >> > [email protected], "David Macko" <dmacko@> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Since last week's demonstrations my last doubts that
> >> >> there is no immigration problem have ended. This is an
> >> >> invasion problem. I strongly object to having the Libertarian
> >> >> Party commit suicide by following your suggestion.
> >> >> Steve, ideals are important and we all need them but until the
> >> >> damages caused by ninety years of "our" government's
treasonous
> >> > foreign
> >> >> policy
> >> >> and a welfare state which attracts parasites are corrected,
> >> >> which might be done in sixty or seventy more years if we start
> >> >> tomorrow morning.
> >> >> In the meantime, here is a rational proposal from our first
> >> >> presidential candidate, John Hospers, A Libertarian Argument
> >> >> Against Open Borders:
> >> >> http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_3.pdf
> >> >> It has three positive arguments in its favor.
> >> >> It does not involve the suicide of the Libertarian Party,
> >> >> the United States or our liberty.
> >> >>
> >> >> For life and liberty,
> >> >> David Macko
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: "steven linnabary" <linnabary51@>
> >> >> To: <[email protected]>
> >> >> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 7:20 PM
> >> >> Subject: [Libertarian] Immigration
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >I am a bit disgusted with the LP's lack of involvement with
the
> >> > recent pro
> >> >> > immigration demonstrations. I'm definitely not pointing
> > fingers,
> >> > because
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > am as to blame as anyone as I've done absolutely nothing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But immigration is an issue that COULD propel the LP
because
> >> > neither of
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > other parties favors open immigration.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > To my defense, and probably of others, I didn't even know
they
> >> > were
> >> >> > happening until after they were over. That really isn't an
> >> > excuse,
> >> >> > because
> >> >> > we should be LEADING on this issue.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I guess I'm asking if anyone here is aware of when the next
> >> > demonstration
> >> >> > will take place? Does anyone know where to contact any
> >> > leadership?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > PEACE
> >> >> > Steven R. Linnabary, Treasurer
> >> >> > Franklin County Libertarian Party
> >> >> > (614) 891-8841
> >> >> > P.O.Box#115; Blacklick, OH 43004-0115
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "When you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make
> > violent
> >> > revolution
> >> >> > inevitable" John F. Kennedy
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
