Liberty or Laws – Immigration or Invasion
Liberty or Laws?
Immigration or Invasion
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 23, 2014
The government and Mainstream Media tell us that there is a massive immigration going on at our southern border. Massive, however, is, in any historical context outside of active warfare, a gross understatement. Is it possible that what is happening at that southern border should be more appropriately described as an invasion?
First, we’ll look at immigration. It is defined as — immigration n. The passing or removing into a country for the purpose of permanent residence. (from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary — In the United States, it assumes compliance with 8 US Code §1101.)
There is no doubt that the United States is a nation formed from immigration, even though many of us have generations going back to prior to the Revolutionary War. However, whether an immigrant, or one born here, the purpose is to become a citizen. With citizenship, there must also be allegiance to the country. Can it be expected that the country protects its citizens, yet the citizens have no allegiance to the country?
Theodore Roosevelt discussed A Problem that Can’t be Ignored in explaining some of the requirements of citizenship, and solutions for those who did not seem to desire to assimilate (To bring to a likeness; to cause to resemble; To convert into a like.) into the host nation. To assimilate into an industrious nation, one must work, participate, and contribute, to at least maintain the nature of the country, if not to improve it.
So, with the above given, are these multitudes crossing the border, intending to assimilate, or is their purpose otherwise? Or, are they deceived into believing that there is one purpose, when, in fact, there is another purpose? Let’s look at what another possible, perhaps plausible, purpose might be.
First, let’s, once again, look at history. In 1775, some farmers and mechanics decided to take on the greatest military force in the world, the British Empire’s army and navy. The didn’t hesitate, even though Hessians, vociferous fighters themselves, were added to His Majesty’s forces.
The colonists, from the first battle, fought in what is now known as asymmetrical (having parts that fail to correspond to one another in shape, size, or arrangement; lacking symmetry) warfare. They fought like Indians; they avoided a major battle, unless there was a hope of winning; the fled to fight another day; and, they conducted completely unanticipated actions. They did so with financial aid from other countries, and, eventually, military and naval forces from France.
The story of the “Trojan Horse” is well known, so, perhaps we can learn something about asymmetrical warfare by reviewing what may have happened, or may merely be mythology. The people of Troy were lovers of beauty. When the Spartan army was unable to defeat them, they devised a means of playing on the weakness of beauty to gain access to the walled city of Troy. The built a beautiful wooden horse, believed by the Trojans to be a token of homage paid by the defeated. We all know what happened, next. However, it was the weakness of the worship of beauty that led to the downfall of Troy.
The United States has a weakness, as well. That weakness is the failure to grasp the nature and the severity of this threat, due to the constant barrage of misdirection and propaganda spewing from mainstream media acting as government proxies, disguising the problem as a “humanitarian crisis” and relying upon the world renowned generosity of the American people to “resolve” a crisis created, funded, and protected by the federal government. The American people are being held hostage in a sense, by their moral principles of giving humanitarian aid whenever and wherever needed, without a firm foundation build upon full disclosure of the nature of the issue. It is called “humanitarianism”, and though our coffers are bare, we will spend our posterity’s future in providing humanitarian aid.
Agencies of government are relying upon that moral mandate so well depended upon by the world at large, humanitarianism, to be the means by which this invasion can be facilitated, using children to force open the gates to this once fair country. ? The outpouring of sympathy for the wretched children, being accompanied by parents or sent unaccompanied through the most violent country in the Western Hemisphere, surely plays on the heartstrings of the humanitarian nature, especially when embellishment and omission, by press and government, divert our attention away from practical considerations while attempting to smother us with our own ignorance of the facts, using the ploy of “humanitarianism.”
Meanwhile, while the attention is directed at the children (paraphrasing Hillary Clinton, “it takes a nation to raise a child”), some unconfirmed, yet quite plausible, reports of increased border crossings, at least in Arizona, perhaps 4 time previous numbers, have been occurring since the current “children’s crusade” began.
Diversion is a masterful art of war. Every effort was made, for two years, to convince the Germans that Calais was the point of invasion. While the German High Command was so sure that they had good intelligence, their resources were directed to the wrong location. This was a fatal error, as they were watching, and relying upon the left hand, while the right hand was ignored.
Now, an “invasion” was defined, in the time of the Framers (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary) as:
A hostile entrance into the possessions of another; particularly, the entrance of a hostile army into a country for the purpose of conquest or plunder, or the attack of a military force.
Well, it seems that the definition just about covers the current situation. It is an entry into the possessions of Americans. It is hostile, as so often displayed by MECHA, AZTLAN, and other groups supportive of the invasion — and the rights of foreigners to our possessions and whatever plunder they can realize. And, according to those same groups, conquest is clearly a part of their professed plan.
Now, let’s look at weapons. The Spartans had their spears and shields with them. Surely, the Trojans would not have provided the means for arming other than those so designated. However, if someone wants to buy a gun in this country, they only have to prove that they have no criminal record, in this country. The sole exception being those veterans who have recently fought for this country and have been determined to be domestic terrorists, and those with mental disabilities.
If “Fast and Furious” had not been exposed, and cut short, how many weapons by those who were able to purchase huge numbers of weapons would have been acquired? Could those weapons have been stockpiled for future use? How many weapons were supplied to foreign entities before Fast and Furious came to light?
The Soviet Union, during the “Cold War”, established arms caches throughout Europe and Great Britain (Soviet agents placed weapons caches across Europe during Cold War). Wouldn’t that be even more easily done in the United States, today? Caches, ready to arm those soldiers who have come across the southern border, apparently peacefully, simply waiting for the call to arms — to continue their invasion — this time, from inside of the gates?
A final consideration, which weighs very heavily on the side of invasion, is the cost of ‘immigration’, under the current circumstances. Reports indicate that the cost per person ranges from $5,000 to $50,000. Those in the $5,000 class are from a country with an average household income of $2,000. Who are those willing to pay $50,000 to sneak across the border? Who has the economic resources to pay such prices? It isn’t the everyday person looking for a better life, most certainly.
This leaves us to contemplate whether this is a massive immigration, which doesn’t, at all, resemble normal immigration, at any time in our historical past, or an invasion, using the concepts of asymmetrical warfare described above.
If the former, then they, and our government, should be abiding by the laws. If the latter, then we should be abiding by our rights. The final questions, however, and the most important aspect of this entire debacle, are:
- Should we prepare for the least offensive, or the most offensive of the possibilities?
- If we prepare for the least offensive, will we be able to deal with the more offensive, if it is the case?
- If we prepare for the most offensive, have we caused any harm by sending people back to where they came from, until they follow the law, and have we provided assurance that we are protecting the birthright of ourselves, and our posterity?
- What are the consequences of the wrong decision?
Related articles:
Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion
Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State
Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor
Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State
Liberty or Laws? — Government and Patriots Aiding and Abetting Criminal Activity
Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties
Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement
Liberty or Laws? Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?
Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful
The Law must be obeyed
It is most imperative that this dissertation start out with the Declaration that nowhere in the powers vested in the President or in Congress Assembled, is the authority to GRANT AMNESTY. The Constitution (Article 2, Section 2) gives the President the power “to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States (not amnesty).
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the authoritative capacity of Congress. Enumerated Powers of the Congress include:
• Collect taxes • Borrow money • Regulate trade • Establish Bankruptcy codes • Coin money • Establish post offices • Provide a military • Provide a militia • Make all necessary and proper laws • Declare War (no power to forgive anything).
The attempts at immigration reform that are being made and advanced by Congress are, at minimum, Unconstitutional, if not criminal. They are predicated on whimsy, wishes, fear, pressures from groups with something to gain, legally or not, and ignorance of all relevant laws.
Our elected officials have asked the question: “Who can be Citizens?”, and they have fabricated an answer that is “TOTALLY” inconsistent with what the founding fathers stated in the first and Third Congress and has been continually expressed in all of the Legislation promulgated since.
It is safe to say that not one of our elected officials has asked: “WHO CANNOT be born a citizen?
FIRST CONGRESS . Sess. II. Chap. 3. 1790 “ Chap. III.
An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”.
The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states:
“…children of citizens of the United States…shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…” (THIRD CONGRESS Session II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: “How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents” Document margin note: “Former Act repealed 1790”.
It is now therefore established, based on undeniable historical fact, from an unquestionable source, who can and who cannot be a citizen.
I am referring to the Definition of a US Citizen, not the birthplace. The place of a person’s birth has little or nothing to do with Citizenship, under international law and treaties the laws of each nation have total and unequivocal authority over the same, i.e. : (S. Res. 511) recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. ———–” [he was not born in the U. S.]. [First Congress, “born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,”]
The First and Third Congress explicitly eliminated being born in the country, as a requirement for citizenship {Jus Soli}, they placed this requirement on the status of the father (parents); citizenship by descent {jus sanguinis}.
“the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. (when their parent [s] became naturalized citizens)
“children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,” Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”
The Proviso the founders included in both the First and Second Congress for Parentage conclusively and unequivocally provides for citizenship by descent. {jus sanguinis}. “..Whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”.
The actions presently being demanded by the President, and now being considered by Congress, are absolutely and undeniably unconstitutional, and to lawfully pursue this action, they will need to legally eliminate the Constitutional requirement of parentage by repeal and replacement of provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which STATES:
”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.
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of—–“.
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”
One of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment’s first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant: “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth, then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant, ergo:
JOHN S. Mc CAIN, III CITIZENSHIP — (Senate – April 30, 2008) [Page: S3645]
“Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 715, S. Res. 511
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows: A resolution (S. Res. 511) recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. ——————”
“Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, §1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.”
FIRST CONGRESS . Sess.II. Chap. 3. 1790
“ Chap. III. — An act to establish an uniform Rule Of Naturalization.(a)
And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”.
Reflecting on the above information we cannot do anything that will violate International Law, or the Sovereign right any Nation has over its citizens.
1. Anyone who is in our country without permission from our State Department is here illegally, and is by definition a criminal and by our laws must be deported. Consequently, to not comply with our own Constitutional laws by one or all of our involved elected and appointed law enforcement officials, is commission of a crime against these United States.
2. We cannot confer citizenship on any individual without their applying or requesting it, and by their formal renouncing of all ties or obligations to the Nation of their Birth. No one in any official capacity can grant United States citizenship to any alien without proper application in accordance with our citizenship, naturalization of aliens’ laws. The President or the Congress, or any other official cannot grant citizenship to any persons, except in accordance with United States Constitutional law. The power of naturalization is Reserved for: Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that sets forth the authoritative capacity of Congress. The Congress shall have Power: To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, …….throughout the United States;
3. Amnesty: In criminal law, a sovereign act of oblivion or forgetfulness (from Greek amnestia, “forgetfulness”) granted by a government, especially to a group of persons who are guilty of (usually political) crimes in the past. It is often conditional upon the group’s return to obedience and duty within a prescribed period. See also PARDON.
4. The power to grant amnesty is not a lawful action of the President or the Congress. The Constitution (Article 2, Section 2) gives the President the power “to grant reprieves and pardons [not amnesty] for offences against the United States except in cases of impeachment.” So if the President grants amnesty it is an Unconstitutional and impeachable Act.
The powers of the President are “carefully limited” and precisely defined by our Constitution. In Federalist Paper No. 71 (last para), Alexander Hamilton asks…what would be … feared from an elective magistrate of four years’ duration, with the confined authorities of a President of the United States?
The answer to Hamilton’s question is this: There would be nothing to fear if Presidents obeyed the Constitution. But they don’t obey it because the idiots in Congress don’t make them obey it!
Sincerely
WILLIAM F. READE, JR. LTC USA (ret)
Mr. Reade is a graduate of:
California Western University B. S. B. A.
U. of Massachusetts. M. Ed.
Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Security Management Course
The U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
Chief Justice Waite wrote in 1874 Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162) case, “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.” So, no, it cannot be expected that the nation should protects its citizens if that citizenry lacks an allegiance to their nation. This is assuming, of course, that the nation is protecting their citizens in the first place; if not, then it begs the question as to whether the citizenry owes a duty of allegiance to a nation that fails to protect them.