Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Report Shows That U.S. Bucks Worldwide Trend In Immigration Policies

October 12, 2010 by  

Report shows that U.S. bucks worldwide trend in immigration policiesResearch of global immigration laws has revealed that the United States is an exception to a worldwide trend of tighter policies. A report from a legal policy analyst states that the U.S. is one of only 30 countries in the world that grants automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.

Jon Feere of the Center for Immigration Studies authored the report Birthright Citizenship: A Global Comparison, which focused on the American policy that grants automatic birthright citizenship. Feere discovered that the U.S. and Canada are the only countries with advanced economies that offer birthright citizenship.

The report also states that the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment was never intended to benefit illegal aliens.

According to a Quinnipiac University poll released last month, 48 percent of American voters believe that birthright citizenship laws should be changed, compared to 45 percent who support the status quo. Approximately 67 percent of Republican voters want to see the current practice changed.

The Los Angeles Times recently published a report by the Pew Hispanic Center that shows that about one of every 13 babies born in the U.S. have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant.

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Report Shows That U.S. Bucks Worldwide Trend In Immigration Policies”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • s c

    All responsible adults must understand that breaking the law to benefit from the deed is immoral and unconstitutional. It mocks our laws, and makes it easy for politicians to use selective enforcement of legal statutes to get and keep power.
    Mexico, in particular, aids and abets American politicians who will stop at nothing to weaken and destroy the Constitution. This behavior borders on treason, and it must be stopped now.
    Any politician who winks at illegals who enter America illegally is a criminal. When violent crimes (including murder) result, those politicians are just as guilty as those who commit the crime(s), and they must be punished to the fullest extent of the law(s).

    • Doc Sarvis

      The majority of the problem is gone if American employers do not hire these people. That is the root of the problem.

      • http://www.personalliberty.com Rob

        Doc,
        I agree that what you said, but that is only part of the problem. We have “ILLEGALS” in our country that are living high on the hog with free healthcare, welfare w/food stamps, education(public and higher ed.), support monies from programs paid for by “LEGAL” taxpaying citizens. “ILLEGALS” have access to programs that law abiding citizens cannot acquire. It is like feeding a stray cat, why leave if you keep taking care of it. STOP with free so-called entitlements and watch them leave in droves.

        • Pat

          My friends —you do not seem to understand these so called illegal have contributed much to our economy and when and if they return to their home country–we the US will be far worst off then we are now. I am affraid that under the present economical conditions that you just might get what you wish for. Our population growth is reaching zero–what does that mean–ask Russia–not a nice forecast.
          We are a nation of immigrants–and I bet everyone here can find a relative far back who “OMG” came here illegally.
          I had a good laugh when it was said that Lou Dobbs found out he had an illegal alien do some work for him thru a hired outside source.

          Well, wake up my friend–if you are going to have any kind of manual labor performed—there will be an illegal worker somewhere in the mix.

          Do you kids cut your grass–do you cut your grass? Who do you see fixing roofs, painting houses. Dud–think about it. And you complain that we provide medical care and education for them—OMG.

          You sound ill informed. Read more. PS

          • James

            Pat, are you saying violating our immigration laws is good for America?

          • 45caliber

            Pat:

            You are right – our population is approaching zero. But you are wrong on everything else. Our country would be worse off it they left? How? Perhaps our idle could find jobs then.

            The reason our population is approaching zero is because it is getting too expensive to raise children. And we no longer believe our children will have a chance at a better life than we do. But to the illegals, this is a better life than where they come from. I don’t begrudge them seeking a better life (I believe they should do it legally) but I do get annoyed when I see them making things even worse for our youth. They don’t raise themselves to the level of citizens as much as they lower the quality of life for our citizens to what they used to see in their home countries.

          • Vigilant

            “Our population growth is reaching zero–what does that mean–ask Russia–not a nice forecast.”

            And you say WE are ill informed????

            Population is increasing in this country! The ONLY sector that is approaching ZPG is the caucasian sector. The illegals, Muslim families, the poor in general are procreating at a multiple of of the caucasian portion.

            Russia, Germany, The Netherlands and others in the industrialized world are having the same problem. YOU need to do more reading!

          • Vigilant

            “We are a nation of immigrants–and I bet everyone here can find a relative far back who “OMG” came here illegally.”

            You have absolutely NO facts to back that up, and your contention is dead wrong.

          • Vigilant

            James:

            You asked, “Pat, are you saying violating our immigration laws is good for America?”

            Answer: Yes, that’s exactly what he’s saying.

          • Warrior

            Why do we need illegals when we have drop out rates in some public school districts exceeding 40%? Nobody with a capacity to work but refuses to should receive any assistance. There’s your choice. Stay in school and actually receive a passing grade or here’s your future.

          • slickporsche

            You must be one of them lazy good for nothing suckers we need to get rid of along with the illegal aliens. You are surely not a traditional American. I mow my own lawn, as most do where I am from, pull the weeds cut up a downed tree, put a new roof on my house and do most of my own work on my automobiles and motorcycles. I get out there and “get er done”. That is the American way! DId you never hear that?? America was built by people that were self sufficient and took care of things themselves. We did really great before all the wetbacks, and we will do much better when they are gone. In addition to that, you might need to get off your dead ass and mow your own lawn.

          • alpha-lemming

            If they all left???? Cool!!!

            Does that mean the Emergency Rooms and welfare offices would be empty??

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Alpha-lemming,
            I don’t know if the ERs would be empty, but they sure would be closer to solvency!!!!

          • Payroll person

            The notion that the “inexpensive” labor, provided by illegal immigrants is helping us is totally wrong. My great grandfather came here as an immigrant, literally put off of the boat down around Beaufort, SC for fear that he had the plague. He never went through Ellis Island, so I guess that made him an illegal. But the difference in today’s immigrant and those entering “unregisterd” like he did back in 1868 is in our economy today. TAXES! Most of them didn’t even exist back then. But the lifestyle then was different than what we now enjoy. The public schools with the free meals provided, paved streets, an intercoastal road system, food stamps, section 8 housing, etc. All of these programs are paid for through our taxes. But when you are paid as an illegal, you don’t pay taxes unless you’ve stolen someone’s SS#. The illegals qualify for all of these programs, but aren’t paying for any of them. Just last week, California finally decided to stop providing free college tuition to the illegals because the state is now bankrupt after all the years they’ve provided for them and looked the other way because the cheap labor was so great. Employers are benefiting by hiring them because they don’t have to pay the employer’s share of Social Security taxes
            (7.65% of the first $106,800.00) Federal and State Unemployment tax or
            Workman’s Comp. All these unseen taxes cost the employer about 8% of every dollar he pays legally for labor, not including the expense of having someone do the payroll and maintain records. So naturally he’d be happy to hire someone that’s not legal. It’s not just kids cutting grass or farm workers picking produce, as you implied. Jobs have been lost to illegal immigrants in road construction,home construction, the poultry and seafood industries. Just talk to someone from the Labor Dept. that’s investigated some of these employers. People like Nancy Pelosi don’t want immigrants here out of concern for them enjoying a better lifestyle. It’s cheap labor for their companies. Read about her vegetable processing plant down in Puerto Rico sometime and how she keeps labor costs down.

          • Think Again

            Good. After all conservatives dont believe in the world…

        • 45caliber

          Rob:

          And to make matters worse, they take the jobs our youth needs. And the reason they can get these jobs is that they are willing to work at reduced wages because of all the “free” stuff they also get. And every act of our government makes it easier for them to get this “free” stuff without detection while making it harder for our own people to make a living.

        • Robin from Arcadia, IN

          Rob… I agree. It is not just employers who hire these people and pay them under the table, but it is all the freebies that they are able to get. It’s like having a bird house and bird feeder. Of course birds might be happier in a nice bird house, but they will really be happy if the bird feeder is always filled when empty. I think if all the employers who pay under the table were to stop for fear of prison terms for violating laws of hiring illegals, they would turn to crime to support their families. The border needs to be secured and our laws must be enforced, not only against the illegals, but against those who hire them. All the ‘entitlements’ need to stop as well. We need to rid our jails and prisons of illegals after our boarders are secured. Send them packing, along with their families. We wouldn’t want to split up families!

        • Sue

          Obama’s Aunt…The Poster Cat.

      • Meteorlady

        Doc – you are mostly wrong. They live and work in my community and have started their own businesses which means that they work for cash and cheaply. It is a fact that many companies hire them, but more work under that table. I think the best way would be to track when immigration raids a company and then not do business with them until they hire legal workers. Tyson Chicken in Arkansas is an absolute law breaker and they have been raided – the result however was that they government just processed the workers, gave them a work permit and next day they were back at work.

        • 45caliber

          Meteorlady:

          My son works for Tysons. He says when they get to work they can always tell when an INS inspector is coming – none of the illegals show up because Tyson has called to tell them to stay home. The one time the inspector showed up without telling them ahead of time, Tysons complained to the judge that by previously calling, the inspection had to be dismissed (as well as their fine) and the inspector had to always call ahead of time in the future.

    • 45caliber

      s c:

      I agree with you. One employer in Houston is now facing just that. He helped an illegal enter the country to work for him – and the illegal shot a cop who stopped him for speeding. Now he is facing the charge of “accessory to murder”. I hope he spends most of the rest of his life in prison as a result. It might deter others.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        45caliber,
        I think it’s called just desserts!!

    • slickporsche

      Actually our governments behavior to the constitution is treason simple and ugly. This current administration wants so make the US into another European country. I have personally talked to many politicians that fully admit the constitution is a pain in the ass for them, and they would love to do away with it.

  • Warrior

    Sometimes it just makes you feel like a sap.

  • http://www.newsandopinions.net Bill Stanley

    Stop forcing me to subsidize illegal aliens with money I earned … find and deport them. http://www.newsandopinions.net

    • http://minnesota MarieElise

      Hi Bill i am with you . very simple .get rid of them .

      • 45caliber

        I think we need to get rid of them by deportation before some people here get so angry that they decide to get rid of them by shooting them. And once the shooting starts, it won’t stop at a word. It will expand to kill many others. We DO NOT NEED THAT! But if the government won’t deport, we may see it – and endure it.

  • Gary

    This problem shouldn’t be very difficult to fix. We need to enforce the law. Punish the guilty. Remove those in government who support the status quo. How is it we have so many idiots? We have idiots elected by idiots. How about a little common sense for a change?

    • AutumnGal

      Gary, your comment reminded me of something my dad used to say… at the time (as a kid) I was somewhat embarrassed.. My dad had very little education yet was so wise; he said, “Politicians are just a bunch of educated idiots without a lick of common sense”! Jim Greer Are we ever seeing that to be the case? Education without wisdom and common sense, is a very dangerous thing….

      • 45caliber

        Intellectuals are one of the most dangerous groups in the world. They will sit safely in their Ivy League surroundings and insist on changing the world to match some theory of their own simply to see what happens. If there are millions of people who starve or are killed due to it, they simply don’t care. To them, the importance of seeing what their theory will bring is more important than the lives of millions – as long as they themselves are safe.

  • AutumnGal

    “The report also states that the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment was never intended to benefit illegal aliens”.
    The Constitution does not need to be changed; It is complete and very precise. We do not need lawyers to “explain it”; we need teachers to teach it, accurately. Our Constitution, like the 10 commandments “are to restrictive” for some. My position is this; If you don’t like either one, deal with it and get over it. They are what they are. Any politician from either “side of the isle” or no side who believes either should be ignored or changed to accomodate those who don’t like them should be barred from filling any political position…. With that type of believe they are incapable of actually serving and certainly are not capable of upholding either one. How many of the problems in our country could be solved with simply following the 10 commandments and the Constitution? We must have a definitive standard for right and wrong and we must respect our Constitution. That is our identity. Of course, if we did the majority of lawyers would immediately be out of work and our economy (as we’ve come to know it) would probably collapse… but it is on the very edge, anyway. That’s what the majority in power is afraid of…. yet the majority of the American people are not…..

    • Craig

      “We do not need lawyers to “explain it”; we need teachers to teach it, accurately.”

      No truer words spoken.

      • AutumnGal

        Thank you Craig. We who believe this absolutely must, dig in our heels and hold the feet of all those we elect to the fire, and require them to adhere to the standards which made our country great. If they don’t, we must send them packing and I don’t think we should have to wait until “the next election” to do so. “This is the time when all good men (and women) must come to the aid of our country”. Push has come to shove…. and it’s time we face down the bullies who would destroy OUR country to further “their agenda”. My desire is to see We The People restore honor to OUR country and create an enviorement where those who “don’t like us” will be VERY uncomfortable. It will require a determination, grit and a no compromise policy on specifics from us. However, we are a country of laws. For those who don’t like that about us are totally free to leave. Changing, to fit those people cannot be an option. Thank you for your encouraging affirmation :-)

        • Gary

          AutumnGal, you are absolutely right. The problem we have here is that our elected officials see themselves as royalty and are well on their way to becoming an oligarchy. This is the problem with democracy and the founders knew that. That is why they gave us a REPUBLIC. Without adhering strictly to the Contitution the Republic cannot survive. The progressives know this, that is why they are constantly attacking the Constitution. It is the only thing that holds them in check. It certainly does not help to have Supreme Court Justices nominated to the court by people with no respect for the Constitution. It is thier goal and intent to tear it down.

        • Vigilant

          “Our Constitution, like the 10 commandments “are too restrictive” for some…Any politician from either “side of the isle” or no side who believes either should be ignored or changed to accommodate those who don’t like them should be barred from filling any political position….”

          The Constitution is “restrictive” in the sense that it restricts the Federal Government from encroaching on the rights of states and individuals (10th Amendment). The problem is that these federal officials take a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and then immediately turn around and treat the Constitution as if it were toilet paper.

          I’m not anti-Christian, but I must point out that there is no legal requirement for officials to adhere to the Ten Commandments. The First Amendment took care of that a long time ago.

          • slickporsche

            I don’t think anyone said the should be forced to follow the ten commandments and the constitution, but it was meant that if they would follow those two documents things would be much better. I agree with that 100%.Do not look at the bible or the ten commandments as religious. Just look at it as a guide for living. It works and has proven that for a very long time. Don’t believe me??? Think about it!! If and that is a big word, we all abided by the Ten Commandments, there would be no need for law enforcement or jails. If you get a chance and are not “afraid” just read the Ten Commandments and think about it.

    • 45caliber

      “We must have a definitive standard for right and wrong and we must respect our Constitution.”

      That is the thing I have been stating in many different threads. Without a standard, we have an anarchy in which everyone is for themselves. At the moment, there are many many laws that grant one group extra privileges over others. And other groups are seeking the same thing. The Bible and the Constitution may be flawed, as some people insist, but without them we have nothing except force. And we cannot remove any flaws, as some insist, because they don’t want to remove flaws – they want to install more of them.

      • Warrior

        Amen. Well said.

      • Vigilant

        45caliber:

        In principle, I have no argument with you. But please understand that the Founders were mostly Deists (Unitarian) in philosophy, monotheists who were believers in Natural Law and based the Constitution on the Creator-endowed rights of life, liberty, property, and other natural rights of mankind.

        They were careful to make no statements regarding the supernatural aspects of revealed religions such as Judaism, Christianity or Islam, with the exception of Thomas Paine, who railed against organized religion of any sort. Jefferson even took razor and scissors to the New Testament, excising everything except Jesus’ words of guidance and morality. Jefferson revered the teachings of Jesus but rejected the miracles, etc., that made Judaism/Christianity unique.

        • slickporsche

          Then I must assume from your post that you actually met and hung out with the founding fathers. That must have been interesting. Why were you not one of them?? Good Grief man you must be really old!!! HAHAHAHA LMAO

        • 45caliber

          Just exactly what does what you said have to do with the statements in the Bible and in the Constitution? Absolutely nothing. First, as far as I’ve been able to tell, Jefferson was the ONLY Diest as you call it. Even he believed in the Bible and what it said. So your whole argument is basically faked to try to make people believe the Bible is wrong. That’s your problem but it won’t be mine.

          • Vigilant

            “Just exactly what does what you said have to do with the statements in the Bible and in the Constitution? Absolutely nothing. First, as far as I’ve been able to tell, Jefferson was the ONLY Diest as you call it. Even he believed in the Bible and what it said. So your whole argument is basically faked to try to make people believe the Bible is wrong. That’s your problem but it won’t be mine.”

            First of all, all of the important Founders and four of the first five presidents were either Deist or Deist-influenced. Franklin and Paine were Deists as well. Don’t engage me on this, 45Cal, because I know full well of what I speak and will run circles around you when it comes to out heritage AND the Bible. The sources are voluminous and they are out there in the public domain, even if you choose to ignore them. You don’t take me on; you take on the Founders.

            Jefferson did NOT believe in the miracles or the supernaturality of the Bible, that’s a proven fact. NO DEIST DID!

            I have no reason to make anyone disbelieve in the Bible, and I have no ax to grind as you obviously do. You might want to get off the web (and your ass) for awhile and actually learn something about this great nation and how it was founded. Your argument is “faked,” not mine.

          • 45caliber

            You may be reporting historical “fact” but you should consider the author. I prefer to read the direct quotes of the Founders. They may have leaned toward being Diest but they all were Christians and admitted it.

          • Vigilant

            “You may be reporting historical “fact” but you should consider the author. I prefer to read the direct quotes of the Founders. They may have leaned toward being Diest but they all were Christians and admitted it.”

            You are flat wrong. Davic L. Holmes, in “The Faiths of the Founders:”

            “It is…impossible to call [Deism] “Christian.” Deists repeatedly called into question any teaching or belief of Christianity that they could not reconcile with human reason. For them reason was paramount in determining religious truth.”

            Also, “Regardless of where they fell on the Deist spectrum, many Deists continued to respect the moral teachings of Jesus without believing in his divine status…if census takers trained in Christian theology had set up broad categories in 1790 labeled “Atheism,” Deism and Unitarianism,” Orthodox Protestantism, Orthodox Roman Catholicism,’ and “Other,” and if they had interviewed Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, they would undoubtedly have placed every one off these six founding fathers in some way under the category of “Deism and Unitarianism.”

            That, sir, is indisputable fact. Reading and investigation are the means we clear our minds of old prejudices and misinformation. Kindly get off your cock-sure roost for a moment and learn something.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Vigilant,
          If you believe that, then I suggest you read letters from the founders. In them, a great many of them claim faith in Christ Jesus and beg forgiveness of same!!

          • Vigilant

            I am not forwarding a “belief” in anything. I’m stating historical fact, plain and simple.

          • http://naver samurai

            Joe H is 100% correct. Keep up the good fight, fellow patriot! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • Howard Roark

    Right on Autumn Gal. ass I have posted many times the US Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse cases ruled that the 14th amendment does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants. This decision has never been overturned. (see below)

    Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)
    Opinions
    MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court

    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.

    The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

    I have personally contacted the Republican Party. (local and national) I have also contacted my states Senators and my house representitive and demanded an explanation as to why the children of illegal aliens are being granted citizenship in violation of law.

    I would highly reccommend that all of the patriots on this site do the same.

    IT IS THE DUTY OF THE PATRIOPT TO PROTECT HIS COUNTRY FROM IT’S GOVERNMENT
    Thomas Paine

    • slickporsche

      I agree with you on most of what you say. However a true patriot will organize and arm himself and get ready to do battle. War is truly the only way to get our republic back and bring respect to the Constitution of the United States Of America. How many of you can stand behing this one????? Give me liberty or give me death. Not many I think. Could be Im wrong, and I sure hope so.

  • 45caliber

    The world is crowded. And most countries agknowledge that by limiting those who want to move to that country. Basically they are saying, “We don’t want you here because we don’t have enough jobs for the people already here. Please go elsewhere or remain where you are.”

    The US at the moment is one of the exceptions. Maybe the only one. It allows immigration simply to get more people here. Why do we need them when we have nearly 20% unemployment right now? (Offical and unoffical numbers – the gov. only counts those taking unemployment checks.) The only reason is that the progressives believe these people will vote for them – for the money they are willing to pay to get those votes in the form of ‘entitlements’.

  • Howard Roark

    Well said 45caliber

  • James

    The 14th Amendment (1868), in pertinent part, reads: “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.” The key word there is ‘born’.
    That amendment followed the 13th Amendment (1865) which freed the slaves, just after the Civil War (1861-1865) ended. Back then the 14th Amendment’s grant of citizenship to the just-freed slaves was never intended to have any other application. However, it does say “all persons born” here “are citizens,” regardless of the nationality of the mother, and that is how the amendment is now viewed.
    It should be changed to read: “All persons born to citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States.” Or, since that part of the amendment is no longer needed, it could just be repealed.

  • marty

    Children born in this country SHOULD be US citizens. HOWEVER, that citizenship should not prevent illegal immigrant parents from being deported along with the child. Illegal means consequences. Once back home they can start up the process OR pay the penalties for what they did in home country. HOWEVER if the child suffers, US intervention on the child’s behalf should occur, even if that means the offending parents lose that child. It’s harsh, but has to be a reality. There are too many other legal ways to get in country for the direct illegal way to be sanctioned. And, YES!!! I do believe that all those born on Indian reservations after the US incorporated all those lands over 100 years ago are US citizens AND citizens of their Indian nations and should not be segregated from all US requiremetns and benefits all other US citizens are required or enjoy. I disagree with repeal as James on 10/12 at 12:50 pm suggests.

    • 45caliber

      At one time, any child born in the US had the right to a US citizenship – but only on his 18th birthday. Until then he shared the same citizenship as his parents. On his birthday he was to make a declaration one way or the other. If he chose the US he could come here as a citizen – but without the rest of his family. If he chose to stay in his home country he would lose that citizenship right here.

      For some reason, they now insist that he is a citizen from birth and has the right to stay here with his illegal parents. Further, they insist that many people has DUAL citizenship. That is impossible before a citizen MUST choose where his loyalty lies. If he chooses one, he cannot be a member of the other since there are conflicts.

      We need to go back to the original ruling.

    • James

      Marty, what you are saying is that a foreign expectant mother can sneak across our border and give birth to a U.S. citizen.

  • Howard Roark

    James. The US Supreme Court ruled that the Phrase “Subject to it’s jurisdiction” excludes from its operation the children of citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States. Born is not the key word.

    The 14th Amendment applies only to the newly freed slaves and their decendants for time indefinite.

    The only 14th amendment citizens around today are the decendants of the slaves. The decendants of the slaves have Civil Rights and the Rest of us have unaliable rights.

    I know that this upsets a lot of people but it is what it is.

    If you were to go today to your local law library and look under title 42 civil rights you would find this (see below)

    TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1982
    Prev | Next § 1982. Property rights of citizens
    How Current is This? All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

    It says how current is this: I assure you that this is the way the regulation reads even as we speak. Check it out for yourself.

    In this CFR Title citizens of the united states are 14th amendment or federal citizens.

    White citizens actually includes everyone else. The reason behind this is because at the time of the writing of the 14th amendment excluding the slaves pretty much every body else were white. The term white citizens in this case also includes Asians, Hispanics etc. it also includes free blacks. (Blacks that entered the US freely and not under slavery.

    • slickporsche

      I think you can take any statement and twist it to a new meaning!

    • Vigilant

      Howard,

      I appreciate your postings and respect your knowledge of law. However, I must once again ask you to understand the impact of what you assert when you say, “The decendants of the slaves have Civil Rights and the Rest of us have unaliable [sic] rights.”

      All human beings, by virtue of their birth as human beings, have unalienable rights. That would include Native Americans, illegal and legal aliens, former slaves, slaves, foreigners, etc. Natural Law makes no distinction, and that’s what our Constitution is based upon.

      Civil rights are rights formalized in law with specific reference to the Constitution. Concerning the term “civil rights,” it has been generally assumed to have particular bearing on the 13th and 14th Amendments reagarding the exemption from involuntary servitude.

      The formalization in law does not mean that a civil right is in some class of meaning that is oppositional to a Natural Right. It means that the natural rights of slaves were recognized as such by specifying same in the Constitution.

    • James

      Howard, I would appreciate having the court cite, you are relying on. Thank you.

  • Howard Roark

    James. Here is yet another Regulation under title 42 civil rights.

    TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1981
    Prev | Next § 1981. Equal rights under the law
    How Current is This? (a) Statement of equal rights
    All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
    (b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined
    For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
    (c) Protection against impairment
    The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

    Citizens within the jurisdiction of the United States (Federal United States) are 14th amendment citizens and again White Citizens are the rest of us.

  • slickporsche

    While we are at it I would like to see the civil rights laws repealed. I have been watching it destroy this country one thread at a time.

    • 45caliber

      They were designed to do just that. The Federal Government has no authority to rule on any criminal case EXCEPT treason. The states decide murder, robbery, etc. The Civil Rights issue came about because the feds wanted to overturn state law, at least in come cases.

      One example: Some years ago here in Texas, there were some Marines patrolling the border. (This is why the military was pulled off the border, I believe.) Someone on the Mexican side started shooting at them across the Rio. After several shots and yells and everything else, they finally realized that the person wasn’t shooting around them by accident – he was just a bad shot and was trying to hit them. One Marine shot back with better aim.

      The Mexican government objected. The Marine was tried in military court – and found innocent of murder. The feds insisted that he shouldn’t have been tried there so they tried him again (the second time for the same charge despite what the Constitution says) because the feds wanted to make Mexico happy. He was found innocent in civilian court. So the Feds charged him with a Civil Rights violation. He deprived that poor marksman on the Mexican side of his “civil rights” to shoot at the Marine. He was again found innocent in federal court by the jury there.

      The whole point is that no one is to be tried twice for the same crime. But because the military and the state didn’t come up with the sentence the feds wanted, they tried him THREE TIMES for the same crime by calling it something else.

      That is the ONLY reason for these laws.

  • slickporsche

    How many of you are advocates of the ACLU ? Do you agree with what they do?

    • 45caliber

      I agree with the reason they formed to begin with and the first two or three years of their work. Then they managed to get a group of liberals into their offices and haven’t done anything right since.

  • wiharu0

    Guys hello, this is my first posting so try not to rip me to bad. I just thought I would share a solution to the anchor babies my legal immigrant housekeeper had. She thinks the parents should have a choice. They can put the child up for adoption and get deported or they can take the child as a US citizen with them back to Mexico and when the child is 18 it has the option to come back as a US citizen but the parents are not allowed to return either way. This way we don’t pay to raise this child and the illegal parents can’t use the child as a way to stay in this country. The solution would also work for children already here. They would be deported with their parents and given the option to return as citizens when they reach 18. We as a country do not need to be paying to raise the children of illegals who have no desire to blend into this country.

    • 45caliber

      You are right. And originally we did it that way. It’s only in the last twenty years or so that this has been changed to what it is today.

  • Howard Roark

    To Sliskporsche. These title 42 civil rights Regulations are a result of the SCOTUS Slaughterhouse cases decision. In this decision the SCOTUS ruled that the 14th amendment created two classes of citizenship. 14th amendment citizens and State citizens. State citizens are covered by the main body of the Constitution, and the newly freed slaves and their decendants for time indefinite are given civil rights by the 14th amendment.

    Slaughterhouse is a fairly long read but is well worth the time. If you read it in its entireity you will have a better understanding of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendmentsthan a majority of americans.

    Slaughterhouse has never been overturned.

  • Howard Roark

    Vigilant.. I understand your concern. One of the first things that i Learned about law is that when reading law you have to leave all emotion out and coldly look at what the law says.

    It starts back before the Declaration. some of the colonies were involved with slavery. The cold hard truth is that slaves were not considered to be men or even human beings. they were property just like you own a kitchen chair.

    When the Declaration of independance was written, im sad to inform you, did not include slaves when it read that all men are created equal etc. slaves were property.

    When the Constitution was written it was decided to not abolish slavery as the slave holding colonies would not ratify the new Constitution and all of their work would be for nothing. Justice Clarence Thomas recently admitted that under the new Constitution slavery was legal.

    Now comes the Dread Scott v. Sanford SCOTUS case. The jist of the case is this. A slave owener brought a slave to a free state. the slave believed that as he was now in a free stete that he was free. SCOTUS ruled that because slavery was still legal, the slave was in fact property and the fifth amendment takings clause required the court to return the property to its rightful owner. in this decision the court also ruled as to who was under the main body of the Constitution and who was not. Again Im sad to inform you that the court ruled that the slaves and their decendants were not included in the main body of the Constitution and could never be included.

    Chief Jusdtice Tanney and the court was pressured to rule that this particular slave should be set free by the court (be activist and change the Constitution without amendment) the court refused as slavery was at that time Constitutional. Chief Justice Tanny in fact told Congress that if they thought that he and the court was going to change the constitution for them they were wrong. That was the job of congress.

    Now comes the civil war and the slaves are freed. The problem was that the SCOTUS had already ruled that the slaves and decendants could never be covered by the main body of the Constitution. “we the people” as a result the newly freed slaves were adrift with no rights whatsoever. A judge at the time said that “the freed slaves were alians in the land of their birth.” this is why the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were created.

    the Slaughterhouse decision ruled that the 13th amendment applies to everyone but the 14th abd 15th amendments applied only to the newlw freed slaves and their decendants for time indefinate. (remember the Dread Scott decision ruled that the slaves and decendants could never be included in the main body of the Constitution.

    You say that all men are created equal and have unaliable rights. I agree with you. that this is the way it should be, but the cold hard facts of the law brings us sadly to a very different conclusion.

    The topic that i have tried to cover is much more in depth than this. i have skimmed over the main points. I would recommend that you read Dread Scott, Slaughterhouse and any other info you can find on slavery and the progression of law concerning same.

    • Vigilant

      Howard,

      I have no reason to challenge you on the legal history of the matter subsequent to the ratification of the Constitution. I trust and respect your research on this. I am not arguing the legal definitions and machinations of the SCOTUS. I am addressing the most basic philosophy of all, that upon which the nation was founded, and in the absence of which any legal opinion is virtually worthless in this country.

      In “Taking the Constitution Seriously,” by Walter Berns, we find:

      “Much of what we regard as politically valuable derives from (Natural Law and social compact theory) and depends upon its validity. Unlike the ancients who spoke of virtue and judged political regimes in its light, we speak of rights and measure political things on a yardstick calibrated in rights…but it is only by recognizing that rights exist prior to and independent of government that they can serve effectively to measure or evaluate governments…And it is only by recognizing that these rights are grounded in human nature, possessed by everybody, irrespective of nationality, color, faith, gender, or ethnic affiliation, that they can serve to measure…governments.”

      The blacks, Indians, Tories, and to some extent the “Jews, Turks and Infidels” were excluded from membership in the society which constituted itself in 1789. This was the choice of the free peoples who wished to govern themselves. It made no statement regarding the natural rights of those who were excluded.

      I’m afraid you misunderstand the expression of natural rights in the Declaration. Whatever the prevalent view may have been concerning slaves as property (and that was by no means unanimous), Jefferson never intended to make the statement of ‘life, liberty and pursuit of happiness’ conditional. There were no footnotes to this declaration of natural law, no exceptions whatsoever. In framing the statement the way he did (taking a slight liberty by digressing from Locke’s original statement of “life, liberty and property”), Jefferson remained true to the Deist’s view of natural law. It applies to every human being.

      The famous 3/5 compromise on representation during the Constitutional debates is ample testimony to the fact that the perception of the slaves as chattel was by no means universal. To maintain slavery as a “legitimate” institution, the South wanted one-for-one representation for all slaves in their states’ populations. The North countered with the argument that, if you want to consider them as property, you cannot include them in the census figures for congressional representation. The 3/5 compromise (five slaves = three persons for representation), unsavory as it was for the North, was agreed to only because the Constitution would never have been ratified without it. It was a pragmatic and expedient, though shameful, act.

      Taney’s Dred Scott decision helped hasten the Civil War precisely BECAUSE it was based on a deficient Constitution that failed to formally recognize the unalienable rights of the slaves. Those rights existed prior to, and will exist forever after, republican governments.

      What you are treating somehow as a right different from a natural right is, I’m reluctant to say, lawyer’s talk. And what I’m trying to get across is that (1) slaves always had natural rights, and (2) formalizing an expression of those rights via Constitutional Amendment is nothing more than a RECOGNITION that those rights always existed.

  • Adam

    Conservatives have to realise that their friends in the business lobbies fought for liberalised immigration policies in the U.S., Canada, Britain and Australia. Not only does mass immigration provide cheap labour, it ensures neverending housing starts (i.e., for banks and developers), and there are many WEALTHY foreign immigrants (e.g., Canada’s Immigrant Investor and Entrepreneur programmes) who grease the palms of politicians. In Britain, Tony Blair turned Labour from a social-democratic party into a pro-business one–bringing a torrent of mass immigration in the process. Australia’s and Canada’s banks, and developers lobbied their governments to massively increase immigration. That corporate-funded propaganda mill, the Cato Institute, has lobbied for liberalising immigration in the U.S. And Arizona’s SB 1070 was only passed because of the role of the Clean Elections legislation, which took Chamber of Commerce-type funding out of the equation. People fighting the ‘liberal’ media on immigration also should look at the media-telecom complex’s cross-ownership holdings–real estate, finance and other population growth-dependant sectors. Just as in the aborted Dubai World Ports deal, business groups are not above selling out their countries for profit.

    • Vigilant

      Adam,

      What’s your point? Who on this site has claimed that LEGAL innigration is harmful to the US? On the contrary, we should laud businesses for enriching our melting pot with useful, hard working citizens. It’s what made us America in the first place!

      • Vigilant

        …sorry, make that “immigration,” not “innigration.”

  • Howard Roark

    Vigilant here is another point that supports the fact that the 14th amendment applies only to the slaves and their decendants.

    the 14th amendment prohibits the states from abridging the privileges and immunities of etc.

    it (the 14th amendment) also prohibits the states from depriving any person of life, liberity or property.

    Article four of the main body of the Constitution prohibits the Govt from abridging the priviles and immunities of citizens.

    the fifth amendment prohibits government from depriving any person of life liberty or property.

    My question is this: why would we the people amend the Constitution to give ourselves protections that we already have.

    the vanswer is we did not. we amended the constitution to give some form of rights to the new 14th amendment citizens.

    • Vigilant

      Howard,
      I’m enjoying the discussion.

      “Vigilant here is another point that supports the fact that the 14th amendment applies only to the slaves and their descendants.”

      Howard, I’ve perhaps been unclear in my presentation, and , if so, I apologize. Please understand that I have no argument whatsoever with the contention that the 14th Amendment applies to slaves and their descendents. That’s a simple fact and I wouldn’t want to dispute it.

      “Article four of the main body of the Constitution prohibits the Govt from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens.”

      The slaves were not citizens of the US, and that is also a fact which I would not dispute. Nor did they have civil rights. But that in no way abridged their natural rights.

      “the fifth amendment prohibits government from depriving any person of life liberty or property.”
      “My question is this: why would we the people amend the Constitution to give ourselves protections that we already have.”

      I’m unsure here if you’re referring to the 5th or the 14th. If it’s the 5th Amendment, you are correct. The Federalists felt that the Bill of Rights was superfluous for precisely that reason, and didn’t need iteration through a list of specifics. Jefferson, via Madison (who somehow transformed from an early Federalist into an Antifederalist), was instrumental in the first 10 amendments.

      If you’re talking about the 14th Amendment, we agree and we disagree. When you say, “We amended the constitution to give some form of rights to the new 14th amendment citizens,” again I have no argument, with exception of a clarification: The single right we gave the freed slaves was the right of citizenship. With that right, the freed slave assumes all the rights of any other citizen in America. The remaining provisions of the 14th regarding due process and equal protection of the law are applicable to all citizens, not just black citizens.

      The philosophical thrust of my argument is thus: no temporal government can give or take away natural rights. Governments can and do give and take away the right to citizenship (not a natural right).

      The confusion, I believe, is when you state that whites have unalienable rights and blacks have civil rights. I think it’s a matter of semantics, in the final analysis. May I offer the following as a modification to the statement:

      All human beings have unalienable rights. The right of citizenship was not extended to all people in the US when the Constitution was ratified. The slaves were given freedom at the end of the Civil War, and in 1868 the 14th amendment gave them citizenship (a civil right)as well.

      Will that do it? I hope so (:-))

  • Meteorlady

    I truly believe that someone wants to bring the United States down in order to protect the New World Order plan. I think that otherwise we would have taken care of these problems years and years ago. Especially the 14th Amendment – it’s a real stretch to apply that amendment to illegals giving birth in this country.

    If we don’t start enforcing our laws we will turn into Mexico without laws and with a lot of people sucking off the government welfare system. All I see where I live is a lot of Mexicans with more children than they can afford and still they keep having more. Not to mean that I’m a bigot – just that they don’t know when enough is enough and that the rest of us have to support what they do.

    • 45caliber

      Oh, they know we have to support what they do. That’s one reason they have so many kids. We support them while they enjoy the large families. But the second and in particular the third generation here has no more kids than any of the rest of us. That is primarily because they can’t get the free stuff as easily and have to work for much of what they have. And you will find that many of them are just as upset about illegals as the rest of us are.

    • s c

      Meteorlady, I have some observations and a question or two for you. First, do you think it’s just a coincidence that those who are behind ‘social justice’ are using illegals for political purposes?
      Second, ‘social justice’ is not strictly a political issue. It has “religious” roots.
      If illegals are being used to furnish easy votes for career criminal politicians, then is there more to it than just easy votes?
      Why aren’t illegals being told that it’s OK for ‘some’ to have abortions, but at the same time, it’s perfectly fine and ‘just’ for illegals to get pregnant and have more and more kids (and NEVER consider having an abortion)? Food for thought, Meteorlady.

  • Howard Roark

    vigilant. you have to read Dread Scott and Slaughterhouse. SCOTUS in Dread Scott ruled that the slaves and decendants could NEVER be a party to the original body of the Constitution.

    Slaughterhouse confirms this fact of law.

    Perhaps the below info will help. if not then we are hopelessly deadlocked but you are a very intelligent person and it has been a pleasure discussing this topic with you.

    http://www.originalintent.org/edu/citizenship.php

    • Vigilant

      Hi Howard,

      I admit that I haven’t read Taney’s decision or Slaughterhouse, except to the extent you have outlined them. But I will, and I believe everything you’ve posted about them.

      “SCOTUS in Dread Scott ruled that the slaves and decendants could NEVER be a party to the original body of the Constitution.”

      Once again, we’re talking at odds when we really agree (I think). Roger Taney simply reinforces what I said: the slaves were not included in the body of free peoples who came together to constitute themselves as a republic (a legal and real world fact). In other words, they were not “citizens” of America. Taney’s decision, as confirmed by Clarence Thomas (a great SCOTUS justice), does not counter what I said, and Thomas would never say, that blacks have unalienable rights under natural law, the very foundation of our Republic.

      Let me make ONE more rephrasing to see if you can agree with me: Whites have unalienable rights and blacks have unalienable AND civil rights.

      • Vigilant

        Oops! My bad.

        Instead of “Thomas would never say, that blacks have unalienable rights under natural law, the very foundation of our Republic,” I meant to say “Thomas would never say, that blacks DON’T have unalienable rights under natural law, the very foundation of our Republic.”

    • Vigilant

      Howard,

      I’ve checked out that link you provided and found it very interesting. For one thing, I wasn’t aware that the slaves became the first “citizens of the United States,” rather than citizens of the individual states. I can see how the blacks are uniquely treated under the provisions of the 14th, and I thank you for referring me there.

      I’ll reread the link in more detail later, but I do wonder about the statement that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. Notwithstanding references to the 10th Amendment (State’s Rights), I think it would be foolish to either teach or assume that slavery, that “abominable institution,” was not the REAL cause of the Civil War.

      • 45caliber

        Slavery was in fact a ploy by MOST (not all) of the Northern businessmen to attract soldiers to fight against the South. It was VERY important to the soldiers to fight to free the slaves. But the war itself did not start due to slaves.

        It started primarily because coal and iron ore were discovered near Mobile, AL. Until that time the South was primarily agriculture and the North was manufacturing. The South began to build a steel mill and the North objected. They insisted that since the South was primarily agriculture, they had to remain that way – because they didn’t want competition. Further, the North insisted that ALL tobacco and cotton could only be sold to Norhtern businessmen and could not be sold directly to Europe. They even passed laws to that affect through Congress, which they controlled. The South objected, due to states’ rights, and seperated. The North, seeing their major market and supply disappearing, declared war.

        The Emancipation Proclomation was done in an effort to stir up the Southern slaves during the war in an effort to cause the South problems behind their lines. It didn’t work. After the war was over the SOUTHERN slaves were declared free. The ex-Northern soldiers had a fit when they realized the NORTHERN slaves (generally called indentured servants) were NOT also free so the North was forced to free them too – I believe it was 2 years after the war was over.

        The freed indentured servants (I know, they were supposed to be freed after working seven years to pay off their “debt” that they didn’t arrange – but they weren’t) then immigrated west, starting the major movement mainly to get as far from their former “Masters” as possible.

        • Vigilant

          Your reference to an obviously biased and incomplete study of history shows once again, and your attempt to minimize the impact of slavery as a cause of the war tells me you are probably a southerner as well.

          Wikipedia:

          “Lincoln said, “This question of Slavery was more important than any other; indeed, so much more important has it become that no other national question can even get a hearing just at present.” The slavery issue was related to sectional competition for control of the territories, and the Southern demand for a slave code for the territories was the issue used by Southern politicians to split the Democratic Party in two, which all but guaranteed the election of Lincoln and secession. When secession was an issue, South Carolina planter and state Senator John Townsend said that, “our enemies are about to take possession of the Government, that they intend to rule us according to the caprices of their fanatical theories, and according to the declared purposes of abolishing slavery.” Similar opinions were expressed throughout the South in editorials, political speeches and declarations of reasons for secession. Even though Lincoln had no plans to outlaw slavery where it existed, whites throughout the South expressed fears for the future of slavery.”

  • DaveM

    By turning a blind eye to illegals working you are also turning a blind eye to abuse. Why do so many people hire them or create laws to protect them? Cheap labor. Letting them come and work with impunity actually forms a second class of worker, one without legal recourse ar labor rights.

    If the Democrats had any morals they would be against illegal immigration.

  • Howard Roark

    Vigilant…I have not been able to respond as quickly as before. I was recovering from spine surgery and since my last post to you have returned to work.

    I am not a southerner. I was born and raised up near the Canadian border.

    Lincoln wrote to Horace Greely: ” If freeing all the slaves would save the union I would do that. if freeing some of the slaves and leaving some in slavery would save the Union I would do that, and if keeping all of the slaves in slavery would save the Union I would also do that”

    Slavery was not even raised as an issue by the north until after the battle of Getteysberg. It is what caused the New York City draft riots.

    The real cause of the Civil War was economic abuse of the Southern States by the nothern States. (see below)

    Jefferson Davis and The Civil War:
    It is widely believed that the Civil War was about the issue of slavery. It’s possible that’s why some men fought, but the real cause of the war stemmed from the natural differences between North and South, Industrial and Agragarian. When the two joined together under the Constitution they knew they would be bringing together two different economic and social systems. But at the time the two sections were balanced in population and number of States. So there was no danger of one infringing upon the other. Keeping the equilibrium became harder as the country grew, and the conflict began. The North soon attained power over every department of Government. There were thirteen Northern states and twelve Southern (considering Delaware as neutral), making a difference of two senators in favor of the North. In the House of Representatives, the North had 135 members and the South 87. So, in all questions pertaining to the diversity of interests between the North and South, the South’s interests were sacrificed to those of the North. Through the adopted system of revenue and disbursements, an undue portion of the burden of taxation was imposed upon the South and an undue portion of its proceeds appropriated by the North. The North demanded a high tariff, “so as to monopolize the domestic markets, especially the Southern market, for the South, being Agragarian, must purchase all manufactured goods,” says southern historian Frank Owsley . The South fought the institution of the tariff, and almost seceded because of it. The resulting effect of the tariff was to transfer a vast amount of wealth from South to North. Under an equal system of revenue and disbursements, this would not have happened. Because there was so little restraint to prevent the Government from doing whatever it wanted, a small group of Northern abolitionists saw this as their chance to agitate for freeing the slaves. But whether or not the Abolitionists were sincere and knew anything about Southern slavery can be easily questioned. There could be several ulterior motives for promoting a subject that the country was so divided on. England, for instance, would have liked to see the newly founded country, that might eventually become their rival, self-destruct. In 1835 the Abolitionists organized societies, established presses, sent out lecturers, and scattered incendiary publications throughout the South. This aroused the South, as many regarded slavery as something that could not be completely destroyed immediately without subjecting the two races to a great calamity and the South to poverty and desolation. John C. Calhoun, a spokesman for the South, said that they felt “bound, by every consideration of interest and safety, to defend it.” By safety, Calhoun referred to the instance where slaves killed their masters, and even women and children. They couldn’t have men like this loose without endangering themselves and their families. There is no doubt that slavery was wrong, but at the time a slave was considered property, and a person’s property was protected in the Constitution. The North ignored the law which said that slaves must be returned to their masters if they escaped to a free state, and not only helped the slaves hide but also incited them to escape. This could cause the slaveowners to lose thousands of dollars at a time. The Abolitionists continued in their battle against slavery and gradually gained more and more power, so that eventually they were agitating the whole Union. In 1854 the Republican party was started. The Republicans were opposed to the spreading of slavery, and believed that it should be confined to the Southern states in existence at the time, and not be allowed in any new states. The South was naturally opposed to this because it would only continue to weaken their power in Government. Again, the natural differences between North and South come into play. “The North had interests which demanded positive legislation exploitative of the Agragarian South; the South had interests which demanded that the federal Government refrain entirely from legislation within its bounds – it demanded only to be let alone,” says Owsley. To keep a firm grasp on the South the North had to check its growth. They weren’t stopping slavery, but the spread of the Agragarian ideals. If too many people believed that their rights were being taken away by the Government, the North would lose its power. In 1860, Lincoln, a member of the Republican party, ran for the Presidency and the South declared that if he was elected they would secede. By then, the South’s perspective was that the Union had already been destroyed and the only means by which they were still connected to the North was through force on the part of the latter. Calhoun said that what had been started as a federal republic was becoming a “great national consolidated democracy.” The Declaration of Independence states that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government…” The Government no longer held the consent of the governed, and soon after Lincoln was elected the South seceded. Jefferson Davis, confederate president, said “as a necessity, not as a choice, we have resorted to the remedy of separating…” Slavery was only one of the many differences between the North and South, it was not the primary reason for the war. Lincoln himself said the war not about slavery. He told Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune that his “paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some of the slaves and leaving others alone I would also do that.” Lincoln may have wanted to “save the Union,” because he knew that the North could not progress without the South. In 1840 the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. Shortly before Lincoln had become President the highest tariffs in US history were imposed. It’s also possible he knew of the ulterior motives of the men who provoked the South and didn’t want the country torn apart because of them. In any case, Lincoln didn’t have the authority to call in 75,000 men whose first service would be to capture the Confederate forts. To the Confederates that was a plain declaration of war and, under the Constitution, a power granted exclusively to Congress. During the war the North used uncivilized tactics, waging war upon civilian areas. Lincoln justified this on the grounds that he was dealing not with a traditional war but with a rebellion, but it was no such thing. The Southerners had the right to secede, and they were not “rebels” as Lincoln referred to them. No State would have joined the Union if it had known it would have to fight to get out. The Union was a voluntary association; every state had a perfect right to secede. After the Colonies won their freedom from England, they were free and independent States. They had joined the Union of their own free will, and should have been able to leave of their own free will for any reason at any time. The Declaration of Independence gave them that right. Slavery, though wrong, was not the primary reason for the war. The primary reason for the war was the difference between North and South. The South had seceded because of the difference, the war was fought because they had seceded.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.