Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Feds Sentence Two Illegal Immigrants for Carrying Nearly 150 Assault Rifles Into U.S. FoxNews.com

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/03...ssault-rifles/
    [Excerpt]
    The seizure came just two weeks after Mexican President Felipe Calderon suggested in a speech to a joint session of Congress that the U.S. consider reinstating the assault weapons ban. Mexico has long argued that easily obtained weapons in the U.S. had escalated Mexico's violent drug war.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    Oh, the wonderful job the news media does these days.


    According to the caption, they carried the guns into the U.S.:
    Feds Sentence Two Illegal Immigrants for Carrying Nearly 150 Assault Rifles Into U.S.
    According to the article, they were destined for Mexico:
    Laredo police pulled over the two men Saturday afternoon. Police said it was the biggest weapons seizure in the area in years and that while the investigation was ongoing, it appeared clear the guns were destined for Mexico.
    Somehow, I doubt that they brought them to the U.S. from Mexico so they could turn around and bring them back to Mexico.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    Just another violation of our rights.... I wonder if theywill give them back there guns after their 10 and 45 days?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    It's amazing two men get charged with entering the U.S. illeagally (impossible in my book) and all the sudden we need to ban "assault weapons". How in the world would a ban have changed this event? what were the "assualt weapons" that they had? (not that it matters) pistols? .22's?

    They can ban all they want, I'll still have mine!

  5. #5
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    steveman01 wrote:
    It's amazing two men get charged with entering the U.S. illeagally (impossible in my book) and all the sudden we need to ban "assault weapons". How in the world would a ban have changed this event? what were the "assualt weapons" that they had? (not that it matters) pistols? .22's?

    They can ban all they want, I'll still have mine!
    Are you saying it is impossible to enter the US illegally, or to get charged for entering the US illegally?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    Are you saying it is impossible to enter the US illegally, or to get charged for entering the US illegally?

    Well if it's illegal then it's impossible, or at least that's the way anti's think.

    No I'm saying that there is no way to enter this country "illegally", just as there is nothing illegal about keeping and bearing arms. The only thing illegal is the g'ment "claiming" the power to enact laws restricting such things.

    I think there are to many people out there that think rights are not "human rights", but are rights that belongonly people that fit a certain criteria. That's why I wrote the"in my book", I know that the majority of people disagree with me. I believe thatall humans are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

    key words for my reasoning are in bold, for any who wish to know.


  7. #7
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    steveman01 wrote:
    buster81 wrote:
    Are you saying it is impossible to enter the US illegally, or to get charged for entering the US illegally?

    Well if it's illegal then it's impossible, or at least that's the way anti's think.

    No I'm saying that there is no way to enter this country "illegally", just as there is nothing illegal about keeping and bearing arms. The only thing illegal is the g'ment "claiming" the power to enact laws restricting such things.

    I think there are to many people out there that think rights are not "human rights", but are rights that belongonly people that fit a certain criteria. That's why I wrote the"in my book", I know that the majority of people disagree with me. I believe thatall humans are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

    key words for my reasoning are in bold, for any who wish to know.
    Are you saying that immigration law is against the inalienable rights of individuals not citizens of the US? Ie. the border should be wide open for any and all to enter whenever they like.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    Are you saying that immigration law is against the inalienable rights of individuals not citizens of the US? Ie. the border should be wide open for any and all to enter whenever they like.
    100% correctomundo!! Are they not human rights? I am one to beleive they are, as it was written, Though like I said many disagree. Apparently they want to throw the BOR and DOI in the trash, or pick and choose what fits there wishes. They sound like denominations to me.

  9. #9
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    steveman01 wrote:
    buster81 wrote:
    Are you saying that immigration law is against the inalienable rights of individuals not citizens of the US? Ie. the border should be wide open for any and all to enter whenever they like.
    100% correctomundo!! Are they not human rights? I am one to beleive they are, as it was written, Though like I said many disagree. Apparently they want to throw the BOR and DOI in the trash, or pick and choose what fits there wishes. They sound like denominations to me.
    An interesting argument. Which part of the BOR isfree entry into the country without inspection defined?

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    steveman01 wrote:
    buster81 wrote:
    Are you saying that immigration law is against the inalienable rights of individuals not citizens of the US? Ie. the border should be wide open for any and all to enter whenever they like.
    100% correctomundo!! Are they not human rights? I am one to beleive they are, as it was written, Though like I said many disagree. Apparently they want to throw the BOR and DOI in the trash, or pick and choose what fits there wishes. They sound like denominations to me.
    An interesting argument. Which part of the BOR isfree entry into the country without inspection defined?
    It isn't defined. Yet, 9A is pretty broad.

    I see Steveman's point. Nonetheless, the rest of us have an enumerated right to freedom of association which includes non-association.

    In a perfect world, there would be no serious reason to restrict migration, in or out. In this world, with numerous cultures not appreciating all freedoms, being economically uneducated (socialists), and so forth, unrestricted immigration can quickly undo the whole game.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    Which part of the BOR isfree entry into the country without inspection defined?
    That would be the 4th and the 9th as citizen so kindly added. Keep in mind It's the right of the people, not the right of the citizens or for that matter the right of the any other criteria one might be inclined to throw in. And those rights are inalienable, so because one is an alien does not take away his rights as a human as listed in the BOR.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    It isn't defined. Yet, 9A is pretty broad.

    In a perfect world, there would be no serious reason to restrict migration, in or out. In this world, with numerous cultures not appreciating all freedoms, being economically uneducated (socialists), and so forth, unrestricted immigration can quickly undo the whole game.As it has!!
    I do share your fears but that is why we have the BOR. We just have to fight tooth and limb for it! Literally, the founders told us of this. Wehave neverstopped people from coming here because of their economic beliefs or any other, nor should we, nor can we. It's a waist of time and money. Much like the "drug war" it only makes room for more government. Pretty soon all you have is government.

    No amount of restriction will stop them, as we can see. And we know from experience (gun-freezones)that just because something is claimed to be illegal doesn't mean it will stop anyone. We just have to deal with infringement's as they come up. If one of them infringes on an others' rights, throw them in jail. Until then leave'm alone. That's how I'd like to be treated.

    We would not have a BOR if it were not for the 9A. As the founders were afraid to enumerate rights, because they knew it's impossible to list them all. So they wrote the 9th to cover all the things not listed,we take for granted, and the unimaginable (future). To bad it's pretty much none exist ant now.

  13. #13
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    Prior to the BOR, didn't the colonies make up their own rules with regard to who was allowed in? Something about good character and all.

    You may have a point though.However, I'll stick with the concerns of some of the founding fathers. It's my belief that if the door were to be left wide open, wewouldn't need to worry about debating the BOR.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    You may have a point though.However, I'll stick with the concerns of some of the founding fathers. It's my belief that if the door were to be left wide open, wewouldn't need to worry about debating the BOR.
    The doors been open for over 200yrs. Why else would they be making a big stink about closing it. Andjust how did all these immigrants get here? How did I get here? (no I'm not an immigrant, butgreat grandparentswere)I don't see what the big deal is, the only problem I see is government tyranny. Just like the drug war, gun laws, and so forth, good intentions but bad results. What about before immigration was "regulated"? I feel your using the same reasoning as the "gun-grabbers". Some how if it's illegal we are magically safer... It's still the same old trade off, essential liberty for security. As the founders said all we'd get is tyranny, as we have. It's really quite simple, just use the same logic you would for the 2A. Rights are Rights, right? And should we not be able to migrate from state to state freely? I fail to see the difference between me going to Ohio, and a foreigner doing the same. Are we not bothmen? What concerns of the founders is it you speak of? I thought the biggest was that we would have the balls to protect our freedom as they did and so readily died for.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Very interesting, that an effective physical barrier is required to avoid abrogating rights.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    Perhaps the issue of immigration could be more easily understood if countries were to be considered the same as your own home... your house.

    Should anyone and everyone from anywhere and everywhere have the right to come into your home, sleep in your bed, eat your food, and fart on your couch? And expect you to pay for their health care, learn their language, put up signs in their language, and adopt their homeland customs? And do all that while not contributing any money to fix the roof because they sent it back to their homeland?
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    steveman01 wrote:
    buster81 wrote:
    Are you saying that immigration law is against the inalienable rights of individuals not citizens of the US? Ie. the border should be wide open for any and all to enter whenever they like.
    100% correctomundo!! Are they not human rights? I am one to beleive they are, as it was written, Though like I said many disagree. Apparently they want to throw the BOR and DOI in the trash, or pick and choose what fits there wishes. They sound like denominations to me.
    Nope. Not a human right any more than someone has a human right to come into your home at will.

    God-given rights (I hate the term "human rights;" the left has so corrupted the term) include the ability to protect property (using fences, walls, borders, etc.) against intruders and thieves. That right extends from individuals to groups of individuals, all the way to sovereign nations.

  18. #18
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    steveman01 wrote:
    buster81 wrote:
    You may have a point though.However, I'll stick with the concerns of some of the founding fathers. It's my belief that if the door were to be left wide open, wewouldn't need to worry about debating the BOR.
    The doors been open for over 200yrs. Why else would they be making a big stink about closing it. Andjust how did all these immigrants get here? How did I get here? (no I'm not an immigrant, butgreat grandparentswere)I don't see what the big deal is, the only problem I see is government tyranny. Just like the drug war, gun laws, and so forth, good intentions but bad results. What about before immigration was "regulated"? I feel your using the same reasoning as the "gun-grabbers". Some how if it's illegal we are magically safer... It's still the same old trade off, essential liberty for security. As the founders said all we'd get is tyranny, as we have. It's really quite simple, just use the same logic you would for the 2A. Rights are Rights, right? And should we not be able to migrate from state to state freely? I fail to see the difference between me going to Ohio, and a foreigner doing the same. Are we not bothmen? What concerns of the founders is it you speak of? I thought the biggest was that we would have the balls to protect our freedom as they did and so readily died for.

    I guess I got to the wrong door, because when I immigrated it took several years, dozens of forms and thousands of dollars in addition tothe extensive background checks etc.The ride wasn't free.

    Was immigration not regulated in some form before the colonieswere states? It seems to me, only people of "good character" were allowed in. Perhaps not.

    The concerns of the founding fathers were those of Jefferson, Hamilton and Washington. Perhaps more. Who knows, they might have been wrong... maybeabout lots of stuff.

    Anyway, I already said you might have a point, and you might.




  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    I feel there is a big difference between my home and the country. My home is private property, but the country I see as public property. And public property should be open to the public (all). This world belongs to god, Who are we to say who can live where? And how is it I have more right to be in this country than a Frenchman? Because I was born here? HAH! We are both men, and given life by the same creator.They have the same god givens rights that I do. So I don't see how one can say it is not a right. Sure they have no right to enter on my property, but if they buy their own what's the big deal? What right do you have to tell them they can not live on their own property or enter on public? So do men have a right to property? Or is it only some men?


    I'm all for protecting against foreign invasion, but not foreign immigration. So I think someone coming into my home and "farting on my couch" (LMAO) is a bit different from someone farting on a bench in a public park. Yes they may suck our wel-fare states dry but so do many of our citizens. The better question is should we have a wel-fare state?

    (I don't know much about this) Would a foreigner who ownsasmall homein lets say Utah, still be considered an illegal alien if he comes here by chopper (no papers of course), and lands on his property?What about off it?That would justbe wrong to own a homein Utahbut not be able to live there legally. Just curious...

    In the case of the OP I see there were no charges other than entering the U.S. illegally. I guess they recognized that the god given rights (to arms at least)apply to all men!:celebrate

    We know that firearm laws only restrict law abiding people, why would it be any different for immigration laws? I guess for those that are just looking for a false sense of security it works much like a placebo.

    Buster, I'm still curious as to what concerns of the founders specifically (not whose')your mentioning?




  20. #20
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    steveman01 wrote:
    I feel there is a big difference between my home and the country. My home is private property, but the country I see as public property. And public property should be open to the public (all).

    What you may "feel" has no bearing on the truth. This country is the private property of those who own it... the citizens. The country is just one big house owned by one big group called "citizens".

    This world belongs to god, Who are we to say who can live where?

    Just as you get to say who farts on your couch the citizens who own this country get to say who can live in it. The world does belong to God but the part of His world called the United States of America is under the stewardship of those who own it.

    And how is it I have more right to be in this country than a Frenchman? Because I was born here?

    Because your birthplace was within the U.S. you have fulfilled one of the qualifications that confer citizenship and therefore you are a citizen... the Frenchman wasn't born here and isn't a citizen of the U.S. until he goes through the process to fulfill other qualifications that allow him to become a citizen.

    HAH! We are both men, and given life by the same creator.They have the same god givens rights that I do. So I don't see how one can say it is not a right. Sure they have no right to enter on my property,

    This country IS your property! And mine! And the property of every other citizen! We most certainly do "own" this land! Why do you say they have no right to enter your property but have the right to enter everyone else's property? "Public" property is property owned by "we the people" .. not "them the whole damn world".

    but if they buy their own what's the big deal? What right do you have to tell them they can not live on their own property or enter on public? So do men have a right to property? Or is it only some men?

    You are confusing property ownership with citizenship status... they are not the same thing.

    I'm all for protecting against foreign invasion, but not foreign immigration.

    An influx of hundreds of thousands of illegal people IS an invasion! It isn't an armed invasion but it is an invasion of people who are not honorable enough to go through the legal process to come in.

    So I think someone coming into my home and "farting on my couch" (LMAO) is a bit different from someone farting on a bench in a public park.

    You, and I, as citizens also own that bench in a public park. What part of "public" being the group called "citizens" do you not understand?

    Yes they may suck our wel-fare states dry but so do many of our citizens. The better question is should we have a wel-fare state?

    Now there you have a very good point! And I agree that a welfare state is a horrible thing... it is the very thing that entices illegal aliens to sneak into the U.S..

    (I don't know much about this) Would a foreigner who ownsasmall homein lets say Utah, still be considered an illegal alien if he comes here by chopper (no papers of course), and lands on his property?What about off it?That would justbe wrong to own a homein Utahbut not be able to live there legally. Just curious...

    If a person is not a citizen it doesn't matter if he filled a hot air balloon with farts and flew in that way.... no citizenship means the person is an illegal alien.... period.

    In the case of the OP I see there were no charges other than entering the U.S. illegally. I guess they recognized that the god given rights (to arms at least)apply to all men!:celebrate

    Wrong Sir! There is a God given right for all men to defend themselves... it is only in America that there is a written guarantee that the citizens have the right to use arms to defend themselves.

    We know that firearm laws only restrict law abiding people, why would it be any different for immigration laws?

    It isn't any different.... the law abiding go through the process of becoming citizens... the criminals (yes, they are criminals!) ignore the law just like all criminals and sneak in.

    Buster, I'm still curious as to what concerns of the founders specifically (not whose')your mentioning?


    You Sir, are confusing God given rights with written legal rights. Even here all people have the God given right to defend themselves.... but luckily our forefathers were wise enough to understand that arms are the most effective means of doing that so they wrote a protection from the government stopping citizens from using arms....

    The legally protected right to keep and bear arms and the God given right to self defense are not the same thing.

    Now... I'll say this to you Sir... if you think that anyone, anywhere, has the God given right to come into the U.S. just because they are a human being let me suggest that you personally invite an illegal alien and his family into your own house... and pay for their food, their schooling, their health care, their clothing, and let them fart on your couch... all on your own dime.

    Because there is no difference between doing that as an individual in your own house and expecting the group of individuals called the "citizens" to do it in their own country.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    What you may "feel" has no bearing on the truth.
    Why else would I have wrote "feel"?

    Just as you get to say who farts on your couch the citizens who own this country get to say who can live in it. The world does belong to God but the part of His world called the United States of America is under the stewardship of those who own it.
    I will admit this is the best argument I have heard yet! Bravo! you may have changed my thinking just a bit. I still don't think we as citizens have the right to say who has the god given right to property and who doesn't. Yes it may be our country but if someone purchases property here they have as much right to it as I do mine. Looking at it from your point of view I see how you could come to say we have this right, but should we use it? I don't think it changes much. I look at it like this: God gave us (humans) this world, so I think every man has the right to walk about it freely. Of course so long as he does not disrupt others and their rights.

    Because your birthplace was within the U.S. you have fulfilled one of the qualifications that confer citizenship and therefore you are a citizen... the Frenchman wasn't born here and isn't a citizen of the U.S. until he goes through the process to fulfill other qualifications that allow him to become a citizen.
    Qualification fuwee! what does it do? nothing, just some bologna that the "big wigs" came up with for a false sense of security.

    "Public" property is property owned by "we the people" .. not "them the whole damn world".
    Do they not fit that category if they so choose? I thought "We the people" included allof us people who wish to be free.

    You are confusing property ownership with citizenship status... they are not the same thing.

    No, just saying that all men have the right to property and not just men under a certain citizenship.

    You, and I, as citizens also own that bench in a public park. What part of "public" being the group called "citizens" do you not understand?

    I don't understand where you get citizens? I speak of the people, you are confusing people with citizens.

    Wrong Sir! There is a God given right for all men to defend themselves... it is only in America that there is a written guarantee that the citizens have the right to use arms to defend themselves.
    Those rights are still rights even if they are not written down or are repealedby men. That is why wewrote the DOI. When we were red, we had no such things written down, but we acted on them anyway because we knew they were there andcould only be taken away by god.
    The legally protected right to keep and bear arms and the God given right to self defense are not the same thing.

    I believe they are both god given.
    Now... I'll say this to you Sir... if you think that anyone, anywhere, has the God given right to come into the U.S. just because they are a human being let me suggest that you personally invite an illegal alien and his family into your own house... and pay for their food, their schooling, their health care, their clothing, and let them fart on your couch... all on your own dime.

    Now your just going back to the wel-fare argument.
    Sorry I just read it as it's written: We the people, not We the citizens. I know you think they are the same thing but I do not. The founders were smart enough to write citizens if that is what they meant. They knew it was forall people and not just citizens.

  22. #22
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    steveman01 wrote:
    I feel there is a big difference between my home and the country. My home is private property, but the country I see as public property. And public property should be open to the public (all). This world belongs to god, Who are we to say who can live where? And how is it I have more right to be in this country than a Frenchman? Because I was born here? HAH! We are both men, and given life by the same creator.They have the same god givens rights that I do. So I don't see how one can say it is not a right. Sure they have no right to enter on my property, but if they buy their own what's the big deal? What right do you have to tell them they can not live on their own property or enter on public? So do men have a right to property? Or is it only some men?


    I'm all for protecting against foreign invasion, but not foreign immigration. So I think someone coming into my home and "farting on my couch" (LMAO) is a bit different from someone farting on a bench in a public park. Yes they may suck our wel-fare states dry but so do many of our citizens. The better question is should we have a wel-fare state?

    (I don't know much about this) Would a foreigner who ownsasmall homein lets say Utah, still be considered an illegal alien if he comes here by chopper (no papers of course), and lands on his property?What about off it?That would justbe wrong to own a homein Utahbut not be able to live there legally. Just curious...

    In the case of the OP I see there were no charges other than entering the U.S. illegally. I guess they recognized that the god given rights (to arms at least)apply to all men!:celebrate

    We know that firearm laws only restrict law abiding people, why would it be any different for immigration laws? I guess for those that are just looking for a false sense of security it works much like a placebo.

    Buster, I'm still curious as to what concerns of the founders specifically (not whose')your mentioning?



    They were concerned about the dilution of principles. Having an unlimited inflowof invaders with beliefs dramatically different from theirswould have had a negative impact on the uniformity of principles and habits they were trying to establish.

    Like I said before, you might be right. A wide open border and open invitation to the entire world, criminal and saint alike, might solve all the problems. Maybe not.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    pahrump nv, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    this has what to do with oc? just asking because i have been scolded for it 500 times

    i think illegals should be shot before they get 1 leg over the fence



  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501

    Post imported post

    Now, maybe at one time, there was an open border in the United States. At one time, slavery and Dred Scott was the law of the land. Things do change.

    As a matter of fact, the Constitution DID change. The 14th Amendment changed who and what was a citizen of the United States.

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

    Further, Art. 1, sec. 8 gives to Congress the authority and power "To provide for the common defense" and "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

    While the ability to move about freely is discussed in the Magna Carta ("It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.") it should be noted that even here, it states "according to the laws of the land".

    Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has this to say:

    (1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.(2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.(3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.(4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.Notice, again, the phrases "provided by law" "necessary to protect national security" "public order" and "public heath"...





  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    oneeyeross wrote:
    Now, maybe at one time, there was an open border in the United States. At one time, slavery and Dred Scott was the law of the land. Things do change.

    As a matter of fact, the Constitution DID change. The 14th Amendment changed who and what was a citizen of the United States.

    Of course, mans documents and rules are always subject to change. But my god given rights do not. If they did we would still be British.

    Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has this to say:

    "We recognize this as a right but there are some restrictions. So therefore it is not. There is no mention of RAS, there is a catch all, and void where prohibited, so don't bother call'n on this document for any help." LOL

    I loved your post, enjoyed it verymuch.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •