Quote from: Aristophanes on August 24, 2014, 10:09:27 AM
Solar, how old are you? Because I'm willing to guess that you are 27-37 age range, and your parents either bought you a house or gave you some sizable bank account or inheritance.

Either way your head is so far up your ass that your back up to where your neck would be .... I am just wondering why.

LOL! Retired in my early 40s as a self made wealthy man, and that was just shy of 20 years ago, and no doubt far more accomplished than you'll ever dream of.

But please, enlightened my academic friend, if China were to have a catastrophic event, one where plant nor animal was surviving due to severe drought, meteor, deep freeze, do you actually think over 1 billion people would stay and die?
There have been massive migrations in history, just that most happened before recorded history.
But for some reason you're an authority of future events, why?

Oh, and based on your writing skill and knowledge base, I'd put you in your late 20s to early 30s, more opinion, than intellect.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 23, 2014, 07:05:54 PM
History says differently.

When it speaks to "the people", the Constitution recognizes three categories; Citizens, Denizens, and Aliens. Denizens were Free Blacks, Native Americans, or anyone else that lived within the country that weren't recognized as citizens. Aliens were foreign nationals, like the Spanish in Florida, the French in Louisiana, and the Brits in the Ohio Valley or Canada, that wandered into America to do trade.

All of these categories had rights, no one was "more equal", Citizens just had the added privilege of voting.

Once Again, Judge Napolitano:

"Americans are not possessed of more natural rights than non-Americans; rather, we enjoy more opportunities to exercise those rights because the government is theoretically restrained by the Constitution, which explicitly recognizes the natural law. That recognition is articulated in the Ninth Amendment, which declares that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be used by the government as an excuse to deny or disparage other unnamed and unnamable rights retained by the people.

So, if I want to invite my cousins from Florence, Italy, to come here and live in my house and work on my farm in New Jersey, or if a multinational corporation wants the best engineers from India to work in its labs in Texas, or if my neighbor wants a friend of a friend from Mexico City to come here to work in his shop, we have the natural right to ask, they have the natural right to come here, and the government has no moral right to interfere with any of these freely made decisions.

If the government can restrain the freedom to travel on the basis of an immutable characteristic of birth, there is no limit to the restraints it can impose."

I'm not sure which constitution you're referring to. The US Constitution does not contain the word 'denizen,' so it can hardly be said to recognize that state of existence, which historically has been based in British law, but abandoned even by them for over a century.

I note too that you refer to the "privilege of voting." I suggest that's a concept you should keep close and use often. Throughout our history, the privilege of voting, even for citizens, has been restricted in various ways or even revoked completely. Even today, certain convicted criminals and those who were dishonorably discharged from military service are denied the privilege of voting in some states.

Your quote from Napolitano illustrates perfectly the disconnects in his logic on the matter. The assertions in his first paragraph are logical and defensible in general, but his use of those assertions to prove what he says in his second paragraph falls on its face.

His assertion, for example, that the Ninth Amendment somehow articulates the rights of people outside the US is ridiculous. He seems to think the use of the phrase "the people" in the US Constitution refers to anyone on the planet. It does not.

Further his brief discussion of immigration in the second paragraph makes little sense. In particular, his assertion that the US government has 'no moral right' to prevent unfettered immigration is specious and foolish. Governments don't have moral rights. They have powers, and one of those powers we have entrusted to our federal government is to establish and enforce the borders of the nation, including the human and material traffic crossing those borders. To fail in that respect is to commit national suicide.

Many nations in the course of history have built physical barriers to emigration. Think Berlin Wall. I can think of only two that have built physical barriers to immigration: the xenophobic Chinese, and the United States. My point is that all nations must and do control their borders in order to remain nations.

You're advocating the dissolution of the United States as a nation.

Quote from: TboneAgain on August 24, 2014, 01:17:36 PM
I'm not sure which constitution you're referring to. The US Constitution does not contain the word 'denizen,' so it can hardly be said to recognize that state of existence

It refers to them implicitly:

"...between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

And "the people" does refer to more than just citizens, this we know, due to the Constitution's use of the word "person"

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States..."

This establishes that "person" is more than just citizens.

"...counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed"

'counting' here then includes Free Blacks, and Indians who are taxed.

You also can find use of "Denizen" in laws of the period.

QuoteI note too that you refer to the "privilege of voting."

And I chose "privilege" intentionally, for the very fact it can be stripped away more easily than out-and-out rights.
Or at least, that's how it's supposed to be.

QuoteHis assertion, for example, that the Ninth Amendment somehow articulates the rights of people outside the US is ridiculous. He seems to think the use of the phrase "the people" in the US Constitution refers to anyone on the planet. It does not.

It does because of how we say rights came about.

Rights, are not established by our Government, they are not established by the Constitution.

The Constitution itself simply recognizes their existence, it did not create them, save those that require affirmative action on the Part of the Government, like "right to due process" or "right to an attorney".

Even those rights are simply a reaction to the rights it did not create, the Natural Rights, rights like "Freedom of Religion, speech, peaceful assembly, press, bear arms, etc." These are rights that pre-exist. Rights that exist because we (human beings) exists, and cost nothing to be recognized.

Why do we have these rights? Because we are human, not because we are Americans, not because of citizenship, but because we are sovereign entities each, like a nation unto ourselves.

A gun is our military, our lawyers our ambassador, our property our domain. That is the American experiment, to treat individuals as if they were nations.

QuoteFurther his brief discussion of immigration in the second paragraph makes little sense. In particular, his assertion that the US government has 'no moral right' to prevent unfettered immigration is specious and foolish. Governments don't have moral rights. They have powers, and one of those powers we have entrusted to our federal government is to establish and enforce the borders of the nation, including the human and material traffic crossing those borders. To fail in that respect is to commit national suicide.

And this ignores our own history, our own experience.

Open border for 140 years, immigrants came to outnumber the originals. We were not only fine, our economy grew immensely because of it. Singapore again is pushing for more foreign workers than natives, nigh-half of Hong Kong's populace at any time is Foreign ex-pats. Neither is at risk for "suicide" culturally or legally, the worst that can be said is the rise in demand of living space, which is a market matter anyway, and it is the market itself which hems in the effects.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 03:43:18 PM
It refers to them implicitly:"...between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

No, it refers to them in no way whatsoever. Claiming an "implicit" reference is an admittance that there is actually no reference at all, but you'd really like for there to be one. Regardless of what you'd really like to be the case, the US Constitution contains NO reference, implied or otherwise, to 'denizens.' It would behoove you not to fuck with me in that manner in the future.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 03:43:18 PMAnd "the people" does refer to more than just citizens, this we know, due to the Constitution's use of the word "person"

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States..."

This establishes that "person" is more than just citizens.

Okay, the Constitution recognizes that there are "persons" that are not "Citizens of the United States." What's your point? How can you not see the clear separation of privilege? How can you not understand that the Constitution is going to treat "citizens" differently from "persons?"

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 03:43:18 PM
"...counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed"

'counting' here then includes Free Blacks, and Indians who are taxed.

You also can find use of "Denizen" in laws of the period.

The word 'denizen' can be found in mighty few laws of the period. It was a feature of Virginia colonial law before the Constitution was ratified, but it's pretty hard to find much other than that in American law, as you have undoubtedly discovered. You're barking up an empty tree, and you know it.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 03:43:18 PM

And I chose "privilege" intentionally, for the very fact it can be stripped away more easily than out-and-out rights.
Or at least, that's how it's supposed to be.
It does because of how we say rights came about.

Rights, are not established by our Government, they are not established by the Constitution.

The Constitution itself simply recognizes their existence, it did not create them, save those that require affirmative action on the Part of the Government, like "right to due process" or "right to an attorney".

Even those rights are simply a reaction to the rights it did not create, the Natural Rights, rights like "Freedom of Religion, speech, peaceful assembly, press, bear arms, etc." These are rights that pre-exist. Rights that exist because we (human beings) exists, and cost nothing to be recognized.

Why do we have these rights? Because we are human, not because we are Americans, not because of citizenship, but because we are sovereign entities each, like a nation unto ourselves.

A gun is our military, our lawyers our ambassador, our property our domain. That is the American experiment, to treat individuals as if they were nations.
And this ignores our own history, our own experience.

By God, you DO have the spirit of America in you! Praise BE!!!

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 03:43:18 PMOpen border for 140 years, immigrants came to outnumber the originals. We were not only fine, our economy grew immensely because of it.

Of course. For 140 years (I'm willing to use your timeframe), there was no point in closing the borders or limiting immigration. With the settling of the Northwest Territories, the purchase of Louisana, and the conquest of ALL of Mexico -- including the core we gave them back --  there was more property than a small nation could manage. But if you can't see the differences between, and the reasons for, radically altered immigration policies after around 1920, you need to do some serious reading.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 03:43:18 PMSingapore again is pushing for more foreign workers than natives, nigh-half of Hong Kong's populace at any time is Foreign ex-pats. Neither is at risk for "suicide" culturally or legally, the worst that can be said is the rise in demand of living space, which is a market matter anyway, and it is the market itself which hems in the effects.

Fuck Singapore and Hong Kong. Do you live there? I don't. I say again, if you think the situations in Singapore and Hong Kong are just exactly the same as the situation in the United States, you need to do some SERIOUS research.

Quote from: TboneAgain on August 24, 2014, 06:08:22 PM
No, it refers to them in no way whatsoever. Claiming an "implicit" reference is an admittance that there is actually no reference at all,

That's the same as saying that the "Implied Powers" don't exist. Not everything surrounding the Constitution was explicitly stated. There are certain rights that we are privy to that the Constitution does not outright list. The Bill of Rights are not the only rights we have, simply a primer (though Hamilton was against them for the very reason he thought courts would take them that way.)

Further, James Madison:

"(I)t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection."

So, Immigrants were in mind, just not explicitly spoken on.

Quotethe US Constitution contains NO reference, implied or otherwise, to 'denizens.'

Yes it does, "persons" include more than just citizens, and it deals with them. Even Indians not taxed, equally, are denizens, as the legal language was used.

Slaves, who were apart of the 3/5 compromise, are denizens. The Constitution was set up to phase slavery out, so it was built-in that these rights would eventually be affirmed for them too.

QuoteOkay, the Constitution recognizes that there are "persons" that are not "Citizens of the United States." What's your point? How can you not see the clear separation of privilege?

The privileges are voting and running for office. That is the difference. Due Process, free speech and freedom of movement are not privileges, rather they are rights, and as James Madison pointed out, Aliens are not precluded from them.

The only power Congress has over immigration, is control over naturalization. E.g. as the law I linked to dealt with, how long exactly the immigrants had to wait, in that case 14 years, before they could be declared "citizens".

Thomas Jefferson however thought even that law was pushing Constitutional muster, and repealed it only 3 years later.

QuoteOf course. For 140 years (I'm willing to use your timeframe), there was no point in closing the borders or limiting immigration.

You missed part of the point.

Because the Founders saw no reason to restrict immigration, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to restrict it. For them to legally have that power would take an amendment.

Whether they were right to leave out that power is a relevant, but separate, issue.

Now, this admittedly is just the Federal Government, there is cause to say that the States, thanks to the 10th amendment, have the power to restrict immigration (and even in the 19th century, some did pass laws to this end).

I have no issue with affirming that. If states make a few breaks from Natural Law, the other states simply through the competition of Social experiments will show why they're wrong.

QuoteFuck Singapore and Hong Kong. Do you live there? I don't. I say again, if you think the situations in Singapore and Hong Kong are just exactly the same as the situation in the United States, you need to do some SERIOUS research.

These are city states. They have even less room to spare than we do. They are much more easily skewed by immigration inflows than we are. Every single one of your claims is worse for them.

Hell, we have more room to spare than most other nations. The average land development density of nations across the world is 10%. We're at 5%. We have plenty of room.

Quote from: TboneAgain on August 24, 2014, 06:08:22 PM
It would behoove you not to fuck with me in that manner in the future.

Three of your posts, tops, and he'll be doing this....

Quote from: quiller on August 24, 2014, 08:12:32 PM


Three of your posts, tops, and he'll be doing this...

Nah, already had that experience. Made an Al Sharpton joke about it, didn't go over well.

Quote from: quiller on August 24, 2014, 08:12:32 PM


Three of your posts, tops, and he'll be doing this....

Oh, I think the boy has a bit more hide on him than that. Of course, he has a lot to learn...

Quote from: supsalemgr on August 23, 2014, 03:59:27 AM
"You can only block illegals if they have harmed your or another's natural rights, or if you know for certain that they're going to."

Do you realize you just made a fool of yourself with the above post? Damn, don't you understand the definition of ILLEGAL?

He knows quite well, and he cares nothing for the "Rule of Law", by definition, he cares nothing for the Constitution as it stands, which is why he insists on translating it to fit an agenda under the guise of economic growth.
Something that obviously is way beyond his comprehension.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 23, 2014, 07:12:36 PM
This is almost reasonable, sadly, this isn't our immigration system today.

Today, we have quotas, we have a bias based on national origin.

It would take someone from India nearly 70 years to enter into the country legally, over a 100 for certain South American nations. That's the same as saying "no".

And that's for people who meet one of the 4 requirements I listed earlier.

For others, there just isn't a line, we will not accept them. Their only ways to get here are either to break the law, or abuse asylum. We have given them no other option.
Cynicism, the 19th century had us flooded with immigrants, our values remained intact.

This view point ignores our own history.

Uh, not so:

"Few of their children in the country learn English... The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages ... Unless the stream of their importation could be turned they will soon so outnumber us that all the advantages we have will not be able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious," - Benjamin Franklin

More than a few of the Founders were insecure about the German immigrants coming here. They still decided to keep the door open.

Notice how similiar their claims are to yours today. Notice equally, that history proved them wrong in the end.

Remember also, that them being wrong took time: in the turn of the 20th century, 700 German newspapers were in print here, and this was years after German immigration spiked in the 1870s. People held onto to things for over a generation, but assimilation ultimately set in. If not in the 1st generation, then in their children. 

Try this: in the 1790s, our Population was 3 million. By the 1840s, it was 30 million. A 10 fold increase, think that was done by births alone?

Also: Once again, Chinese = most productive people on the planet.

Hong Kong? Singapore? Taiwan? You bet your ass I'd like more of the kind of culture that produces that effect here.

Europeans that actually shared our ideals , while fleeing communism, which only helped strengthen our Nation
And beyond that point was the gold rush in the mid 1800s the majority of which returned to their native country.
Again, what gives you the idea a billion Chinese, (made legal under your version) would show allegiance to the US when voting?
Which is the design behind our immigration laws, that people are willing to learn the language, our laws and assimilate.

People willing to jump through hoops are the kind of people we want, people with perseverance, a willingness to succeed.
These are the qualities the country needs to grow, not a bunch of slave class workers to steal entry level jobs from our own citizens.

Can you distinguish between the two?

Quote from: Solar on August 25, 2014, 06:21:54 AM
Europeans that actually shared our ideals ,

Not always the case..

Germans fleeing Nazi Germany were remarked by F.A. Hayek to still have large sympathies to National Socialism.

Communism was many items hallmarked by popular revolutions, with certain factions that became ostracized by the main one that took power. Followers of Trotsky certainly weren't safe in Russia anymore than the Whites, nor the followers of Nestor Makhno who wanted a anarchist Free Territory Ukraine.

Being enemies, doesn't suddenly make you a capitalist.

QuoteAnd beyond that point was the gold rush in the mid 1800s the majority of which returned to their native country.

Just goes to show why it's not bad to let them in.

People moving during the Gold Rush were also being motivated by the 1848 Revolution in Europe, and the Taiping Rebellion in China that went on for 14 years. This immensely increased the population of California, allowing it to apply for State status.

QuoteAgain, what gives you the idea a billion Chinese, (made legal under your version) would show allegiance to the US when voting?

(A billion? Really? Almost all of their population?)

1. I'm not suggesting you automatically give them citizenship. Letting them work & Live here without that right has precedent, it's called permanent residency.

2. They *somehow* developed this allegiance when coming here in the 19th century. And Asians are the minority group most likely to vote Republican, they're leading the charge in California right now against Affirmative-action.

QuoteWhich is the design behind our immigration laws, that people are willing to learn the language, our laws and assimilate.

You keep omitting the last part, "skills because we don't want you to compete against poor Americans" which is nonsense. Immigrants with skills compete against more Americans than the "unskilled", and regardless, it helps us our economy bring them in.

Helped us in the 19th century, despite most being uneducated, low-skilled, and speaking no English.

People like my Norwegian Great-Grandfather, who could not have come here under today's laws.

QuotePeople willing to jump through hoops

No, you're retro-actively attaching virtue to a system that is obstructive in fact, and that obstructive bleeds over to Americans who need immigrant labor to run their business.

Obstructive systems just make things worse.

Quote from: Solar on August 25, 2014, 06:05:32 AM
He knows quite well, and he cares nothing for the "Rule of Law", by definition, he cares nothing for the Constitution as it stands,

You apparently don't care. You state you don't believe in Natural law, as both paraphrased and directly named in the Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness, yes, they were paraphrasing John Locke.), and used as Precedent by Supreme Court Justices in the Founding Era, and as professed today by Clarence Thomas.

You keep ignoring that we had open borders for 140 years, to a positive effect.

You keep side-stepping the history, ignoring the precedent, ignoring that the Founders themselves, despite their own huge reservations about the German immigrants that would eventually come to outnumber the English, still embraced open immigration. And history proved them right for doing it.

"Agenda"? Then why do free market groups, like CATO, like the Manhattan institute, like Frasier, all push for more legal immigration? Why did they teach me this? What's their "agenda", exactly?

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 25, 2014, 01:41:30 PM
Not always the case..

Germans fleeing Nazi Germany were remarked by F.A. Hayek to still have large sympathies to National Socialism.

Stop moving the damned goal post!

QuoteTry this: in the 1790s, our Population was 3 million. By the 1840s, it was 30 million. A 10 fold increase, think that was done by births alone?

Quote(A billion? Really? Almost all of their population?)

I gave a scenario as to it's probability.

Quote1. I'm not suggesting you automatically give them citizenship. Letting them work & Live here without that right has precedent, it's called permanent residency.

What do you suppose would happen to this country ifd suddenly 2 times the current population settled here?
This is my entire point, either people take the time to assimilate, or they forget about entering the country.

Quote2. They *somehow* developed this allegiance when coming here in the 19th century. And Asians are the minority group most likely to vote Republican, they're leading the charge in California right now against Affirmative-action.

They are also culturally opposites of Latins, so they assimilate better.

QuoteYou keep omitting the last part, "skills because we don't want you to compete against poor Americans" which is nonsense. Immigrants with skills compete against more Americans than the "unskilled", and regardless, it helps us our economy bring them in.

Skilled immigrants add to prosperity of the nation, unskilled simply make it cheaper for corporations to operate and compete.

QuoteHelped us in the 19th century, despite most being uneducated, low-skilled, and speaking no English.

Sheesh! The majority of Americans were farmers.
You really aren't very good at this I see.

QuotePeople like my Norwegian Great-Grandfather, who could not have come here under today's laws.
No, you're retro-actively attaching virtue to a system that is obstructive in fact, and that obstructive bleeds over to Americans who need immigrant labor to run their business.

Obstructive systems just make things worse.

We're not farmers anymore either, so your claim falls lat on it's face!

And why are you so pro corporate, corporate today is not the same as it was before NAFTA, now it's Crony Capitalism, EG. GE who's head is part of this Marxist administrations Cabinet .

Small business is still the largest employer in the country, and we should be removing blockades making it easier for them to grow, not making it easier for corporations to put them out of business via cheap unskilled labor.

Quote from: Solar on August 25, 2014, 05:03:15 PM
Stop moving the damned goal post!

In the same paragraph I quoted from you were invoking Communists. Communism was started in 19th century but the uprisings you were mentioning occurred in the 20th.

You opened the door for it yourself.

QuoteWhat do you suppose would happen to this country ifd suddenly 2 times the current population settled here?

Just to say, going to extremes is a form of straw man argumentation.

I already told you Singapore is inviting a larger foreign population than they have native, I told you Germans, who the Founders were suspicious of for the same reasons you accuse the Hispanics and Asians, came to outnumber the original colonists.

And I told you that these Germans did not assimilate right away, holding onto their language so that several hundred newspapers were in print in German, decades after their arrival, and America ended up adopting many of their traditions.

Like putting gifts under a tree, and Oktoberfest.

When are you going to address them?

QuoteThey are also culturally opposites of Latins, so they assimilate better.

A too-convenient outlook, and one Pew itself shows no clear distinction on.

QuoteAnd why are you so pro corporate, corporate today is not the same as it was before NAFTA, now it's Crony Capitalism, EG. GE who's head is part of this Marxist administrations Cabinet .

QuoteSmall business is still the largest employer in the country, and we should be removing blockades making it easier for them to grow, not making it easier for corporations to put them out of business via cheap unskilled labor.

And see? Cynicism, as I said earlier. This is your true objection I take it?

Having more immigration is not cronyist, and you already have the evidence well in hand to see why.

That Farmer, is he the face of big business to you? What with no smartphone, and a computer likely still running Windows 2000? He's just a fat cat that needs to be taken down a peg?

Small businesses need cheap labor even more than big ones do, because their profit margins are equally smaller. Wal mart once put its weight behind a measure to raise the minimum wage, because it understood that doing so would drive many of it's smaller competitors out of business.

If we want a better, more vibrant economy, you need people. You certainly don't get it with population growth straddling decline, like we are without all the immigrant we get.

You want to see what that leads to? Go look at the greying Russia or Japan.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 26, 2014, 09:44:48 PM
Small businesses need cheap labor even more than big ones do, because their profit margins are equally smaller.

I see no need to continue this nonsense. You know absolutely nothing about business/industry, yet think you know better than business what's best for them.

As an owner of small businesses all my life and a CEO and corporate owner as well, I think I'm far more qualified on the subject than some myopic kid spewing LIBertarian bull shit, that only recently left the nest.
So run along son, you bore the Hell out of me.