Ok to be fair i have to report a couple of discoveries. First off if
you went by the orginal intent of the founders the debates show the
MIgrartion and Importation of Persons Clause strictly delt with
slavery but it is a bad idea to count on intent in a legal document,
the legal words at the time should be used unless the words has two
or more meaning and the contex does not clearly define the words then
the intent of the authors and signers of a legal document can be
entered in
evidence.
The second discovery was reading over Lysander Sponner's book
The Unconstionality of Slavery, in regard to the Migration and
Importation of Persons Clause, Sponner who is a Orginal meaning
interperter of the Constitution says the word Importation does not
have to mean property because durning his time before the civil war
the words factories importing workers and shipowners importing
people from Europe, so it appears durning his time you could import
free people. Sponner says this is an extension of the Commerce Clause
which includes the navacation of ships from foreign countries and
interstate waterways. Still if Sponner is correct it is the importers
and the commerical transporters that the federal government would
have authority to regulate not those who make it through on their
own, it the case of Mexicans it would be the Coyotes bringing the
Mexicans across and the A US employers who the US government can
regulated on immigration. If the Mexicans walk or swim across on
their own without paying someone to help them the federal government
has no legal authority over their immigration.--- In
[email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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/
