at the PA. ratifing convention pointed out one of the arguments that
I made to relive fears that Congress would have the power to forbid
White Europeans from coming into the country, which he denied
Congress would have the power to do but he went a bit farther in his
argument. He said notice that when it came to taxing there was no
metioned of migration thus migration is associated with importation
Of Persons which could only mean
slaves.
I found this in the Founders Constitution which is online and
breaks down clause by clause with the state ratification debates, the
national convention debates, Blackstone Commentaries, The Federalist
papers, Newspaper editorials, early Supreme court rulings and various
other letters and commentaries. I have not read all of the
commentaries, debates etc on this clause but so far except for two it
was said it was about slavery. Some even said they did not use the
word slave so that it would pass, a previous draft forbided Congress
from ever forbiding importation of persons, some states would not
ratify unless Congress had the power to forbid importation of
slaves.
In one letter From a Countryman he feared Congress would keep
the Irish out and wondered at the gaul of them to do that when they
had spoke so often of liberty etc, he spoke about the Declaration of
Independence of condeming the King for refusing to pass Foreigners to
encourage their
Migration.
The other was Supreme Court Justice Story in 1833, he said
migraration in the clause could apply to volunter people
also.
So it looks like there were people at the time that did fear
giving the federal government power over immigration and they did
think people would take the word migration out of context.--- In
[email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Boyd, naturalzation has nothing to do with immigration, that is
> becoming a citizen. Section 9 does not deal with people walking
> across the border, it was intended for the slave trade but in
keeping
> with Orginal meaning of words trumps what the authors intended, it
> still does not apply to people who walk across the border, that is
> traveling not importing, this might apply to someone transporting
> people across the border in to a state along the border but not to
> someone walking across, you don't import yourself plus the
importing
> would need to be as a service for a residence of this country (
say
> an employer) not for the person being imported. It would appear
> migration goes with the word imported, that is after being
imported,
> then moved to another state or more than one other state. It
appears
> that migration goes with importation because of the tax but
migration
> appears to be going from one state to the other not from another
> country into a state otherwise prior to 1808 why would Congress not
> have the authority to place a tax on someone walking across the
> border. If Congress had the authority over imigration after 1808
why
> didn,t the constitution specify immigration in the constitution as
it
> did specify naturalzation, why wasn't the authority of immigration
in
> section 8 alone with the naturalization
> clause?
> Personally I think Lysander Spooner was wrong this had to do
> with importing slaves and moving slaves into free states but if we
> are to not go by what they intended but what the words meant at
the
> time and in the context of the sentence then it can mean other
people
> other than slaves but it is a bit of a stretch to say the word
> migration gives the federal government authority over immigration,
> that is walking from another country into a state when taking into
> the whole context of the sentence and the fact that it does not
> specify immigration, nautralzation, immigration and emigration were
> common words at the time but it failed to specify immigration when
it
> had earler specified naturalzation.--- In
> [email protected], <boyd.w.smith@> wrote:
> >
> > Article I sections 8 and 9. 8 gives congress the duty to
establish
> uniform Rule of Naturalization. Section 9 says that after 1808
> congress can make laws on migration and importation of persons.
> >
> > BWS
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: terry12622000 <cottondrop@>
> > Date: Monday, May 1, 2006 2:52 pm
> > Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Latino protesters made a huge public
> relations mistake
> >
> > > How are they illegal? Yes those that tresspass on private
> property
> > > and mess it up around the border are illegal and property
owners
> > > have
> > > a right to protect their property and persons and they have a
> > > right
> > > to join with their neighbors in protecting their property and
> > > person,
> > > plus request the Sheriff and local police department help. That
> > > being
> > > said if they are not violating anyone's rights or attempting to
> > > then
> > > how are they illegal. The constitution also does not give
> > > authority
> > > over immigration to the federal government, yeas if a state,
> > > county
> > > and locals request help in defending the borders the federal
> > > government can help but it would be very unwise now to
encourage
> > > the
> > > federal government to come and park their employees( either
> border
> > > guards or a standing army) in the local area messing in things
> > > that
> > > aint none of their business. I'm very disipointed at some of my
> > > fellow libertarians and some conservatives who should know
> better
> > > than to tempt the Central government with the request of help
and
> > > the
> > > grant of more power especially when it clearly is not needed.
Its
> > > Congress breaking the law get that straight by passing
> immigration
> > > laws when they have no constitutional authority to do so, they
> are
> > > going against their oath of office which is illegal. Some
states
> > > may
> > > have the constitutional authority over immigration if the state
> > > constitution says so.--- In [email protected], John
> > > Perna
> > > <savefreedom2005@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Latino protesters made a huge public relations mistake
> > > >
> > > > A small thought: "Do unto others as you would have them do
> > > unto
> > > you."
> > > > Who ever boycotts TODAY, WILL BE BOYCOTTED FOREVER.
> > > > May first is a communist holiday.
> > > > We are now seeing imported CLASS STRUGGLE.
> > > >
> > > > THE SOURCE OF THIS ARTICLE, Original URL, and AUTHOR
> > > > CAN BE FOUND AT:
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FreedomOfSpeechNow/message/73
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > THE CENSORED URL IS EMBEDDED THERE
> > > > The message is being censored by the CAPCHA CENSORSHIP
> PROGRAM.
> > > > I don't know how everybody else feels about it, but to me
I
> > > think Hispanic people in this country, legally or illegally,
made
> > > a
> > > huge public relations mistake with their recent demonstrations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't blame anybody in the world for wanting to come to
> > > the
> > > United States of America, as it is a truly wonderful place. But
> > > when
> > > the first thing you do when you set foot on American soil is
> > > illegal
> > > it is flat out wrong and I don't care how many lala land left
> > > heads
> > > come out of the woodwork and start trying to give me
sensitivity
> > > lessons.
> > > >
> > > > I don't need sensitivity lessons, in fact I don't have
> > > anything
> > > against Mexicans! I just have something against criminals and
> > > anybody who comes into this country illegally is a criminal and
> if
> > > you don't believe it try coming into America from a foreign
> > > country
> > > without a passport and see how far you get. What disturbs me
> > > about
> > > the demonstrations is that it's tantamount to saying, "I am
going
> > > to
> > > come into your country even if it means breaking your laws and
> > > there's nothing you can do about it."
> > > >
> > > > It's an "in your face" action and speaking just for me I
> > > don't
> > > like it one little bit and if there were a half dozen pairs of
> > > gonads
> > > in Washington bigger than English peas it wouldn't be happening.
> > > >
> > > > Where are you, you bunch of lilly-livered, pantywaist,
> > > forked
> > > tongued, sorry excuses for defenders of The Constitution? Have
> you
> > > been drinking the water out of the Potomac again?
> > > >
> > > > And even if you pass a bill on immigration it will
probably
> > > be
> > > so pork laden and watered down that it won't mean anything
> anyway.
> > > Besides, what good is an other law going to do when you won't
> > > enforce
> > > the ones on the books now?
> > > >
> > > > And what ever happened to the polls guys? I thought you
> folks
> > > were the quintessential finger wetters. Well you sure ain't
> paying
> > > any attention to the polls this time because somewhere around
> > > eighty
> > > percent of Americans want something done about this mess, and
> mess
> > > it
> > > is and getting bigger everyday.
> > > >
> > > > This is no longer a problem, it is a dilemma and headed
for
> > > being a tragedy. Do you honestly think that what happened in
> > > France
> > > with the Muslims can't happen here when the businesses who hire
> > > these
> > > people finally run out of jobs and a few million disillusioned
> > > Hispanics take to the streets?
> > > >
> > > > If you, Mr. President, Congressmen and Senators, knuckle
> > > under
> > > on this and refuse to do something meaningful it means that you
> > > care
> > > nothing for the kind of country your children and grandchildren
> > > will
> > > inherit.
> > > >
> > > > But I guess that doesn't matter as long as you get re-
> > > elected.
> > > Shame on you. One of the big problems in America today is that
if
> > > you
> > > have the nerve to say anything derogatory about any group of
> > > people
> > > (except Christians) you are going to be screamed at by the
media
> > > and
> > > called a racist, a bigot and anything else they can think of to
> > > call
> > > you.
> > > >
> > > > Well I've been pounded by the media before and I'm still
> > > rockin' and rollin' and when it comes to speaking the truth I
> fear
> > > not. And the truth is that the gutless, gonadless, milksop
> > > politicians are just about to sell out the United States of
> > > America
> > > because they don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to
> > > the
> > > face reality.
> > > >
> > > > And reality is that we would never allow any other group
of
> > > people to have 12 million illegals in this country and turn
> around
> > > and say, "Oh it's ok, ya'll can stay here if you'll just allow
> us
> > > to
> > > slap your wrist."
> > > >
> > > > And I know that some of you who read this column are
> > > saying "Well what's wrong with that?"
> > > >
> > > > I'll tell you what's wrong with it. These people could be
> > > from
> > > Mars as far as we know. We don't know who they are, where they
> are
> > > or
> > > what they're up to and the way the Congress is going we're not
> > > going
> > > to.
> > > >
> > > > Does this make sense? Labor force you say? We already
> > > subsidize
> > > corporate agriculture as it is, must we subsidize their labor
as
> well?
> > > >
> > > > If these people were from Haiti would we be so fast to
turn
> a
> > > blind eye to them or if they were from Somalia or Afghanistan?
I
> > > think not.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > All the media shows us are pictures of hard working
> Hispanics
> > > who have crossed the border just to try to better their life.
> They
> > > don't show you pictures of the Feds rounding up members of MS
13,
> > > the
> > > violent gang who came across the same way the decent folks did.
> > > They
> > > don't tell you about the living conditions of the Mexican
> illegals
> > > some fat cat hired to pick his crop.
> > > >
> > > > I want to make two predictions.
> > > >
> > > > No. 1: This situation is going to grow and fester until it
> > > erupts in violence on our streets while the wimps in Washington
> > > drag
> > > their toes in the dirt and try to figure how many tons of
> > > political
> > > hay they can make to the acre.
> > > >
> > > > No 2: Somebody is going to cross that border with some
kind
> > > of
> > > weapon of mass destruction and set it off in a major American
> city
> > > after which there will be a backlash such as this country has
> > > never
> > > experienced and the Capitol building in Washington will
probably
> > > tilt
> > > as Congressmen and Senators rush to the other side of the issue.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know about you but I would love to see just one
> > > major
> > > politician stand up and say, "I don't care who I make mad and
I
> > > don't care how many votes I lose, this is a desperate situation
> > > and
> > > I'm going to lead the fight to get it straightened out"
> > > >
> > > > I don't blame anybody for wanting to come to America, but
> if
> > > you don't respect our immigration laws why should you respect
any
> > > others. And by the way, this is America and our flag has stars
> > > and
> > > stripes. Please get that other one out of my face.
> > > >
> > > > Pray for our troops
> > > >
> > > > God Bless America
> > > >
> > > > April 10, 2006
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on
> > > Yahoo!
> > > FareChase
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for
ridiculously
> > > low
> > > rates.
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
