Harbin,

When the USA Constitution was written there was NO government! There was
a group of independent states. No government higher than state
government in existence. All state governments were equal.

The USA Constitution begins: "We the People..." not "We the citizens..."

Rights, ALL RIGHTS belong to the people. If you studied philosophy, you
would conclude that rights are rooted in the dignity of the person, not
derived from government. Government responsibilities and authority are
delegated from the people to the government for the maximum common good
for the maximum number of people.

On Tue, 02 May 2006 06:23:25 -0400, Dave wrote:

Harbin,

When the USA Constitution was written there was NO government! There was
a group of independent states. No government higher than state
government in existence. All state governments were equal.

Hi Dave,

You are quite wrong. Previous to the ratification of the U.S.
Constitution, we lived under the Articles of Confederation which was a
Republican form of government complete with assembly and President.

The Constitutional Congress was formed to look at the Articles, not
create a new government.

The USA Constitution begins: "We the People..." not "We the citizens..."

The Constitution speaks of citizens of states, but it nowhere provides
for the qualifications of becoming a citizen. However, there is the
3/5ths rule and the untaxed Indians who are implicitly not citizens
(saying nothing of women).

Rights, ALL RIGHTS belong to the people.

There are many in the current administration that would dispute this.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The Articles of Confederation were a failure! No centralized government.
The USA government, as we basically have it today did not exist during
and after the Revolutionary War. The Constitution did not become the Law
of the USA until 4 March 1789.

The Amendments are written as follows:

Prior to ratification of the Constitution, Amendments 1 through 10 use
the language of 'PEOPLE' [not citizen]. [Amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, and
10] [Prior to 4 March 1789]

Subsequent to ratification of the Constitution, Amendments 11 through
26, that deal with human, not political or liquor issues, use the
language of 'CITIZENS'. [Amendments 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 24, and 26]

The 14th amendment, following the US Civil War [9 July 1868],
establishes citizenship definitions as follows:

"1. 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." This was originally worded to assure
citizenship to the emancipated slaves. It has since been judicially
interpreted in a broader sense.

In the current passionate discussion of immigration rights we categorize
and pre-judge, by our use of language, a group of people. Are they
'Illegal Immigrants', or, 'Undocumented Workers'? Regarding the law
governing immigration, is it founded on 'per ipse 'wrong or is it
founded on 'Good Order for the maximum common good'. I suspect the
number of immigrants from any nation who may legally immigrate to the
USA is arbitrarily chosen in the US House of Representatives. The quotas
can be easily changed by act of Congress. A case can be made that QUOTA
systems are basically discriminatory.

Regarding the 'oppressive' states, and there are many, the politics of
'Power' and 'Might makes Right' does not ratify the yearning of people
to be FREE. Governments may and do usurp human rights, but that does
make it right! The UN has an Office of Human Rights. The Pope has an
Office of Human Rights. Many governments of Europe have political
entities devoted to Human Rights. There are many NGOs devoted to human
rights. These rights include fundamental human rights, political rights
and social rights.

IMO, secure borders, in a post 9-11 USA environment, cannot be morally
justified based on QUOTAS. And we have quotas for the Mexican
immigrants. How are these quotas justified? [Does the USA authorize
100,000, 500,000 or 1,000,000 immigrants a year? Why is there any
particular number?]

I'm pontificating, I know it! But, I see injustice in any QUOTA system.

/S/ DD, W1MCE

Richard Clark wrote:

On Tue, 02 May 2006 06:23:25 -0400, Dave wrote:


Harbin,

When the USA Constitution was written there was NO government! There was
a group of independent states. No government higher than state
government in existence. All state governments were equal.


Hi Dave,

You are quite wrong. Previous to the ratification of the U.S.
Constitution, we lived under the Articles of Confederation which was a
Republican form of government complete with assembly and President.

The Constitutional Congress was formed to look at the Articles, not
create a new government.

The USA Constitution begins: "We the People..." not "We the citizens..."


The Constitution speaks of citizens of states, but it nowhere provides
for the qualifications of becoming a citizen. However, there is the
3/5ths rule and the untaxed Indians who are implicitly not citizens
(saying nothing of women).


Rights, ALL RIGHTS belong to the people.


There are many in the current administration that would dispute this.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Dave,

On Tue, 02 May 2006 13:25:11 -0400, Dave wrote:

The Articles of Confederation were a failure!
does not lead to the conclusion of
No centralized government.
as in fact there was a central government by its very creation. Hence
there were citizens, but they were not of the United States until
ratification of the Constitution.

In the current passionate discussion of immigration rights we categorize
and pre-judge, by our use of language, a group of people.

Language is a necessary part of communication - nothing is context
free.

Are they 'Illegal Immigrants', or, 'Undocumented Workers'?

As to language, it matters little except to excite groups. As to
legalities, those definitions satisfy themselves and still manage to
excite groups.

Regarding the law
governing immigration, is it founded on 'per ipse 'wrong or is it
founded on 'Good Order for the maximum common good'. I suspect the
number of immigrants from any nation who may legally immigrate to the
USA is arbitrarily chosen in the US House of Representatives. The quotas
can be easily changed by act of Congress. A case can be made that QUOTA
systems are basically discriminatory.

This is redundant. A quota must be discriminatory. No case is made
where it is obviously offered freely.

Regarding the 'oppressive' states, and there are many, the politics of
'Power' and 'Might makes Right' does not ratify the yearning of people
to be FREE.

Your passion seems to be getting ahead of your logic.

Governments may and do usurp human rights, but that does
make it right!

Passion is getting brighter, but the logic is failing.

The UN has an Office of Human Rights. The Pope has an
Office of Human Rights. Many governments of Europe have political
entities devoted to Human Rights. There are many NGOs devoted to human
rights. These rights include fundamental human rights, political rights
and social rights.

Yes, and I work with one, and support many. However, few of these
agencies that you offer have the power to open borders.

IMO, secure borders, in a post 9-11 USA environment, cannot be morally
justified based on QUOTAS.

We have always had quotas with and without the 9-11 context. It seems
odd to separate them from the morality equation.

And we have quotas for the Mexican
immigrants. How are these quotas justified? [Does the USA authorize
100,000, 500,000 or 1,000,000 immigrants a year? Why is there any
particular number?]

Justified? The courts answer to that as it is their business. OK, I
can tell what you mean by "justified" but you are freely mixing
morality, laws, government, and history and the meaning of "justified"
goes through a great amount of flexibility to support any one
argument.

I'm pontificating, I know it! But, I see injustice in any QUOTA system.

Any quota system? The apportionment of members of congress by
population is just one system.

There's an obvious quota in the ability of border guards to simply
look at every visitor coming across the border. A line waiting to be
seen is its own quota. If you did less than simply look, then yes, we
would be quota free. Would it be unreasonable to have a guest book at
the border for everyone to sign, or would this be a quota too?

No, pontificating is not a solution and seeing injustice is not really
being a witness.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC