not immigration but if migration can mean other people including
slaves the importation can also mean people other than slaves.
Lysander Sponner pointed out durning his time importating was also
refered employers importing free workers from Europe by ship, so I
can see how importing would refer to transporting of " Such Persons".
The pharse does use the word or between migration and importation so
it can mean Congress can Prohibit Persons who migrate into the
country but are not imported. I gather that the orginal intent of the
clause was clearly about slaves but the authors and the ratifers
wanted the slave states and the strongly antislave state to ratify
the constitution so they left the word slave out. From the writings
and debates at that time there was a fear that Congress would see the
clause as more than about the slave trade and start to prohibit free
people that might be of a minority status like the Irish, others said
No that will not happen because of the way the clause is worded, in
the Penn. convention ratification debates it was said the tax on
importation tied importation and migration
together.
Anyway they messed up being that the Constitution is a legal
document we have to mainly go by what the words meant at the time and
the context of the sentence but although I am not a laywer I fiqure
the final minutes of negotiating a contract can be brought forth as
evidence if someone later questions the wording of a contract. If
just before the vote all parties said this is the intent of the words
then maybe it would be fraud to stand on the words, there might be
another word but if someone expert use of words was used to pull the
wool over the other parties eyes. Of course if non of the parties
were trying to defraud the others but only choose the wrong words in
the final document then non of the parties should object to going by
the agreed upon intent but this makes it hard for partites not in the
negotiation especially several years later, still the transcripts of
the final debates with the agreed upon conclusion to intent after all
these years still can be entered into as
evidence.
Anyway I think I was wrong by saying Congress are the
crminals when they prohibt such people as any of the 13 Orginal
states thought proper to admit but standing only on orginal meaning
what does the words such persons that as any of the states now
existing ( the states at the time of the writing) shall think proper
to admit, before 1808 mean? What does admit mean, does it mean a
action by the one or more of the first states, did they post guards
at the ports and borders to give permission to come into the country
and maybe stamped papers? What about those that crossed where there
was no check point or custom station. Who were the Persons that the
first states before 1808 that they though proper to admit? If other
Persons that the first states did not think proper to admit at the
time or Other persons that were not even trying to get into the
Country after 1808 say 2006, where does the Clause give Congress the
authority to prohibted those Other Persons? Were Mexicans, people
living in Central America and South America trying to be admitted
into one or more of the first states before 1808 and did those states
think it proper to admit them? Does the trety signed after the
Mexican wars exclude certain Mexicans from the said person status
even if they were a part of that group that was thought proper to be
admitted by the first states before
1808?.
What does the authority of Prohibiting include? refusing
admintance through migration and refusing others from importing them
seems fairly clear. It is far from clear that the clause gives
Congress authority to demand immigrants carry ID papers or even
permission papers, nor does it allow for Congress to demand employers
ask for ID papers, giving employers prision sentences for not
checking papers would clearly be illegal constitutionally. No
basically the clause means " said Persons" can be refused admintence
through either migrating into the country or from others bringing
them in, it does not give Congress the authority to demand ID once
into the country. In keeping with the 5th amendment and the right of
all people to due process and not be deprevied of their life, liberty
or property without the due process which includes the right to a
jury trial and the right of appeal, the federal government must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent is a " said Person" who
has been prohibitted from admintence into the US. The Federal
government has no right of appeal, it can't just round people up,
have an excutive depratment hearing or kangroo court and deport them,
it can't harass employers, the federal government must prove its
case. In keeping with the second to the last clause of Article 1
section 8, the federal government must get the Consent of the state
legislator before it can build Forts, dock Yards, Arsenels, Magazines
and other needful buildings, this would include custom buidings and
admintence stations. I would encourage the states not to give that
consent if it has not giving that consent, plus it should be checked
to see if proper consent was giving. Of course the state legislators
must follow their state constitution if the state constitution says
it must get the permission of the owner or his representive to build
or use property, then the legislator must do that even to give
Consent to the federal government to build.--- In
[email protected], "hrearden_hr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Although the section of the article was refering to slaves the
> wording of it means that after the year 1808 Congress can place
> prohibitions on states in regard to migration. After 1808 in fact
> Congress did enact legislation prohibiting slaves from being
> transported to the U.S.A. Congress because of Article I sec.9 can
> plase prohibitions on immigration. The part about a duty being
> imposed on importation of persons is useless because slavery and
> indentured servtitude have been abolished and thus people are no
> longer transported to the U.S.A. as slaves or indentured servents
as
> payment for their passage. After 1808 it was illegal to transport
> slaves to the U.S.A.
>
> $
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote:
> >
> > Nice try. Naturalization is not immigration.
> >
> > Let's look at Article 1, section 9 which you attempted to use out
> of
> > context...
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > This says the federal government can't prevent the states from
> > permitting any immigrants to they choose before 1808 but the fed
> can
> > charge a DUTY of up to $10 per person. The word DUTY refers to
> > imports. In otherwords...SLAVES. If you're importing slaves,
> > Congress can charge up to $10 per head as a duty. Since slavery
> has
> > since been outlawed, this clause is useless. It does not grant
the
> > federal government any authority over immigration.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- 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.
