Jump to content
WMD

Unailenable Rights doesn't include the right to enter another country

Recommended Posts

Some people believe that Unalienable/Inalienable Rights include the right to free movement upon the globe. They think sovereign nations don't have the right to keep people from entering their country. In the DoI the founders agreed that all men were created equal, but that didn't include them having the liberty to roam the globe. Liberty doesn't mean freedom, we secured these rights to ourselves and our posterity, all though we recognize these rights of all people in their countries and we push those countries that deny their citizens those rights to change.

 

Our founders recognized the right to emigrate (leave ones country of origin with permission) but they also recognized the receiving nations ability to deny entry or to remove them from the country. Even the Pilgrims that landed in 1620 passed laws that deny entry via their port of entry to criminals, vagabonds and paupers from outside their settled lands.

Quote

In 1639, the Pilgrims of Massachusetts called for the expulsion of foreign paupers,
setting fines for shipmasters who discharged criminals and paupers. Virginia and other colonies
followed suit. Pennsylvania passed a law "for imposing a duty upon persons convicted of
heinous crimes and imported into the Province," and another "for laying a duty on foreigners
and Irish servants, etc.; imported into the Province." These laws were viewed as too weak and
were repealed in 1729 and replaced by a more stringent ordinance.

 

Pennsylvania, in 1722, imposed a tax on every criminal landed and made ship owners
responsible for the good conduct of their passengers. This was followed by other laws designed
to control immigration. An act of 1727 required shipmasters transporting immigrants to declare
whether or not they had the express permission of the British government to bring their fares,
and required all immigrants to take an oath of allegiance to the King and promise to respect the
laws of Pennsylvania. In 1729, the colony imposed a head tax of forty shillings on each
immigrant, an early instance of the use of a tax to restrict immigration. In order to prevent
carriers of disease from landing, the colony came to require ships to anchor a mile offshore
until a port physician could make an inspection.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=2ahUKEwihspq68vfcAhWQJXwKHaXlDyIQFjAKegQIChAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fusinc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2FUSImmigrationhistorylutton.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3bS_X4q3gnltYViJPJZWrw

 

So, even in Colonial America, foreigners could be denied entry based on the laws set forth and established.

 

How could the founders then believe every foreigner had a right to come to the newly formed US via some mis-understanding of the word Liberty as expressed by some people?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i feel when i was born i got the god givin right to go anywhere i please on the globe...i never understood any argument against that im either free or im not...im a freedom dont mean security type guy...

 

    

26 minutes ago, WMD said:

, foreigners could be denied entry based on the laws set forth and established.

can i get one example how ever easier when you get a minute...id like to look more into this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Ripcannon said:

i feel when i was born i got the god givin right to go anywhere i please on the globe...i never understood any argument against that im either free or im not...im a freedom dont mean security type guy...

 

    

can i get one example how ever easier when you get a minute...id like to look more into this.

Try to enter any country on the globe without a Passport. Try to enter any country just by leaving a cruise ship that makes port. There is no God given right to go anywhere on the globe you please. Liberty, as used in the DoI, doesn't equal freedom to enter another sovereign nation.

 

I gave a link that explains the laws passed by the Pilgrims from the Mayflower in 1639 Massachusetts and laws as passed by other Colonial colonies during the times from 1659 - 1789. The laws passed by Colonial American colonies and the Confederate States, these laws carried over to the US when it was formed in 1789.

Edited by WMD
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To use Ripcannon’s logic, I am born in God’s image, I gave a right to go on to anyone’s property and take anything o want... I can go into the grocery store and take the fruit if I am hungry because I am free and God created the food ... 

 

Sorry Ripcannon... that argument is just ludicrous. 

 

I suggest searching for and reading:

 

The Law of Nations: Or, Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns (FrenchLe droit des gens) is a legal treatise on International Lawby Emerich de Vattel, published in 1758

 

It was used in Europe on how nations operated and as you can see, it was written BEFORE the birth of America however, George Washington and our Founders all read it, understood the concepts and implemented these. 

 

http://kingdom-hawaii.org/lawintro.html

(online reading)

 

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there you go imtexan thats what i ment....do you know how much federal and state own land we cant step foot on or hunt and im telling you it aint for the sake of the environment???smh...idc iv'e recently said i was for the wall even if it goes against my morals a little..

    "politics have no relation to morals" 

                                   Niccolo Machiavelli
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ripcannon said:

there you go imtexan thats what i ment....do you know how much federal and state own land we cant step foot on or hunt and im telling you it aint for the sake of the environment???smh...idc iv'e recently said i was for the wall even if it goes against my morals a little..

    "politics have no relation to morals" 

                                   Niccolo Machiavelli
 

 

Yes... I do know. I lived in New Mexico, a state that was (at that time) about 60%  under the BLM control. I was working on the Agenda 21 story as a newspaper report at the Desert Journal in early 2000 ... I do understand. I do know what is the BIG PICTURE. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ImTexan said:

 

Yes... I do know. I lived in New Mexico, a state that was (at that time) about 60%  under the BLM control. I was working on the Agenda 21 story as a newspaper report at the Desert Journal in early 2000 ... I do understand. I do know what is the BIG PICTURE. 

 

Part of Agenda 21 is to get people moved from rural areas to the major metropolitan areas into cubicles where they are more easily controlled.  Agenda 21 is to change local governments to the global agenda, agenda 30 is the program for turning nations into the globalist's lackys.

 

A BREAKDOWN OF ALL 17 POINTS OF AGENDA 2030 AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR HUMANITY.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s right ... it is easier in states with large amount of BLM control. Not so easy in Texas

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 60 years ago they were arguing about much of the same things we are today, its just more divisive now.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Who Viewed the Topic

    13 members have viewed this topic:
    Dav Harzin SC Lightfoot Militia The Resister WMD Let_Freedom_Ring Ripcannon SPECTRE 6 Whiskey6 ImTexan Megatron Shammer nina9mm Skillet
×

Important Information

Your Privacy Is Important To Us Learn More: Privacy Policy