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