Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

History Repeating itself?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • History Repeating itself?

    Hmm. I wonder why some people already forgot about this.

  • #2
    Hmm. I wonder why some people already forgot about this.

    Comment


    • #3
      The pilgrims and others did not violate any immigration laws. Indians only occupied the land they lived on and had no right to own it. Jonhson v. M'Intosh - Absolute title belongs to the discoverer ; Indans are savages and did not make productive use of the land therefore did not have title other than occupancy

      Comment


      • #4
        There were no occupants before the savages. We are not the displacers, we are the rightful owners since we occupied and made productive use of the land. Again, read Jonhson v.M'Intosh

        http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/ri...NTOSH_1823.HTM

        Comment


        • #5
          Thus has our whole country been granted by the crown while in the occupation of the Indians. These grants purport to convey the soil as well as the right of dominion to the grantees. In those governments which were denominated royal, where the right to the soil was not vested in individuals, but remained in the crown, or was vested in the colonial government, the king claimed and exercised the right of granting lands, and of dismembering the government at his will. The grants made out of the two original colonies, after the resumption of their charters by the crown, are examples of this. The governments of New-England, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and a part of Carolina, were thus created. In all of them, the soil, at the time the grants were made, was occupied by the Indians. Yet almost every title within those governments is dependent on these grants. In some instances, the soil was conveyed by the crown unaccompanied by the powers of government, as in the case of the northern neck of Virginia. It has never *580 been objected to this, or to any other similar grant, that the title as well as possession was in the Indians when it was made, and that it passed nothing on that account.
          ...
          The ceded territory was occupied by numerous and warlike tribes of Indians; but the exclusive right of the United States to extinguish their title, and to grant the soil, has never, we believe, been doubted.
          ...

          But the tribes of Indians inhabiting this country were fierce savages, whose occupation was war,
          ...

          Comment


          • #6
            Other contemporary opinions include:

            Dred Scott vs. Sanford (1857):

            "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guaranteed to the citizens of the United States, in every State that might desire it..."

            "Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the Act of Congress [the Missouri compromise] which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory; even if they had been carried there by the owner, with the intention of becoming a permanent resident..."

            That should give folks an idea of the predominant ideology at the time...

            Comment


            • #7
              Another excellent decision !!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                Slavery and human exploitation are degrading, shameful practices. But more than a century of law tells us that this nation has evolved beyond such horrific atrocities now rightfully considered criminal to the highest degree.

                Savages? Savages are those who still exploit and degrade, or promote the exploitation or degradation of, human beings, regardless of the reason.

                Comment


                • #9
                  This is what women are doing to Amerian men. They are degrading us and exploiting us. They want to live off of our work and do nothing. Everything to them is "free" as long as men pay for it. Are you now ready to denounce this form of slavery? Are you saying that women are savages? No slave has ever suffered as much as the American man is made to for the sake of supporting free loading women. At least slaves had the chance of escaping; American men can't even do that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SonofMichael:
                    This is what women are doing to Amerian men. They are degrading us and exploiting us. They want to live off of our work and do nothing. Everything to them is "free" as long as men pay for it. Are you now ready to denounce this form of slavery? Are you saying that women are savages? No slave has ever suffered as much as the American man is made to for the sake of supporting free loading women. At least slaves had the chance of escaping; American men can't even do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                    Why do 'you' succumb to it?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I consider women to be equal to men in the eyes of the law and society. You may or may not accept that principle, but that's up to you, and what you do or don't do is none of my business; you have a right to believe in whatever you want, again, that's entirely up to you.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hey Houston,
                        Have you heard anything further on the 212??

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          What do you mean by "the 212"?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            "212 waivers could be filed and adjudicated without requiring the alien to leave the U.S... But what about those memos instructing officials to continue to deny 212 waivers if the applicant remains in the U.S.? I guess nobody knows for sure what's going on.
                            The 10th circuit recently held that denied AOS applicants admitted under 217 cannot renew in front of the IJ, they're only able to request asylum."
                            (your quote)
                            could you elaborate??

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I was trying to illustrate the "circuit split syndrome" that seems to prevent the uniform application of INA.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X