06 June 2007

Illegal alien amnesty is NOT establishing Justice

Needless to say I am quite extreme in defense of my Nation and make no particulars about that. This is put into terms that are derogatory to those who wish to end such views as are had on such trivial things like National Sovereignty and the Rights of Man to have self-government unhindered by foreigners. Yes, such trivial things those are, in this lovely, modern era, when Human Rights trump that of Nations and that Nations, indeed, have no place in protecting those rights. Some grand and glorious brave, new world of compassion for those that have proven to be global scofflaws will be brought about by putting forth that breaking mere international law and National law still makes one a good candidate to *be* a Citizens of the United States. Which laws between Nations are those?

Well, lets start with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as so many love to point at this very thing to put forth that once a person shows up on the doorstep of a Nation after going through no formalities, after not applying via Embassy or Consular Official, after obtaining no visa or in obtaining visa then decide that a time limit is just too difficult to figure out and thus do not do that, or just plain walk in for their own convenience to do as they will... these folks, no matter if they come for love nor money nor job nor family must be held accountable to the Treaties that make up the Laws between Nations. Strange as that may seem that is something that MUST BE DONE to get the PROVISIONS of those Treaties for one's self-protection.

When one reads the actual Articles in the Universal Declaration you are suddenly hit upon by something: they are based UPON Nation States. Let us look to Article 8:

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Yes they do, by whatever provisions are in the Constitution or other ruling charter or legal procedure of the Nation they are *in*. Further in Article 10:
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Again, this is an assurance that WITHIN A NATION a fair hearing can be had. I do wish some Nations would actually do this thing and uphold this, but it is, apparently, an 'optional' right for some Nations that do not abide fully by international law. Mind you, in the US it is fully mandatory as we enjoy laws here for Our Nation to protect and keep it.

To go on we see what should be done with criminal charges in Article 11:
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
These are for purely civil crimes within a Nation State. And here is where there is a major attempt by those wishing to destroy the idea of Nation State play upon the fact that civil law is conflated with international law, so that any breaking of international law is a purely civil matter. It is NOT. Breaking international laws, via the Treaties that binds one in the Nation they are from or are in by permission of that Nation is paramount. Thus, those that do NOT adhere to international laws and the Treaties that are the substance of them, and that do not follow regularized procedures of the Nation they seek to enter may NOT appeal to mere civil code *within* that Nation for redress. A violation of the Laws of Nations is a paramount procedure of the Nations involved and has often led to violence and warfare. While civil penalties may be put upon such things in a Nation, a Nation is also free to put forth that individuals breaking with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are no longer covered by it due to their actions.

By breaking the Treaties involved and individual is not granted their coverage.

This is not mere civil crime against a Nation or State: it is a crime of Nations to do this. In prior times it has gone by the names of: espionage, piracy, brigandage, and simple barbarism. Those first three are addressed NOT by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but by the prior existing and paramount Geneva Conventions covering conflict and warfare between Nation States. That the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is, indeed, based upon Nation States and individuals upholding Treaties is seen in Article 13:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
When legally inside a Nation or State one is to have unhindered freedom of movement so long as it does not put that Nation at risk, and those are civil crimes or war crimes depending upon action taken. Further, when visiting another Nation legally, an individual has the right to GO HOME. These are obvious and blatant. These things cannot and do not cover those who break the Laws of Nations known as the Treaties between Nations. And anyone who breaks this Treaty by not adhering to the Nation State organs involved for such movement of individuals is not given access to these rights. This idea of upholding the Nation State is further reinforced with Article 14
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Anyone may 'seek and enjoy' asylum in other Nations, but there is no onus upon Nations to provide such. Many a Nation has specifically refused this to various individuals and are signatories to this Treaty. Further this may not be invoked for anything OTHER than political outlook. This may not be invoked for: economic reasons, reasons of poor health, reasons of poor opportunity, reasons of poor upbringing. There is no such thing as 'economic asylum'. The reinforcement of the primacy of the Nation State is giving in Article 15
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Nationality is normally provided to be the Citizenship of one or the other of one's birth parents, although some backwards countries, like the United States, provide for birth at that Nation to be a requisite, although internally that is flexible to the States themselves. Normally this is one or both the Nationalities of the parents and an individual given the choice of one or the other at age of majority. Each and every single right mentioned within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are universal only to those Nations that have actually signed up for the Declaration.

Even further the Universal Declaration of Human Rights then goes on to clearly and openly state that Nation States are to have self-government, as in Article 21:
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Government access within one's own Nation is not to be infringed upon. The People are seen as the authority of government and to form government. A government of, by and for the People of that Nation. It can mean no other thing and still have the Universal Declaration make any sense at all. With illegal aliens we hear this strange idea of the universal right to contract work by some, especially the Wall Street Journal, and so let us look to Article 23:
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
All of these rights are internal to a Nation State or via the methodology arranged between Nations by Treaty. One may not work something else outside of that as that is breaking with National Sovereignty. It is meaningless to have self-government and Nation States if Nation States may not reflect the will of the People within them. One does not have the right to form an illegal contract especially one that breaks international law which are the Treaties between Nation States. In some Nations this is known as Treason. It also goes by names of sabotage and 'falling under the influence of a Foreign Power'. Without utilizing the strictures and structure given for the reciprocity between Nation States in the form of their Treaty agreements, one may NOT form a contract between oneself and any member or part of another Nation State. In point of fact that is directly stipulated in Article 29:
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Any Nation that signs up to this Treaty agrees that all members and parts of that Nation shall operate with full regard to this and will NOT do things contrary to *any* Treaty between Nations covering these areas. No Citizen or Member or Organization or Corporation has the right, within one Nation, to break with this Treaty once it becomes Law. To do so is a breaking of international law and this Treaty. Finally the Universal Declaration upholds these things and the other grand restriction in the omnibus restriction in Article 30:
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
One may not break any part of any Treaty between Nations, put the National Sovereignty of any other Nation at risk nor interfere in those affairs to seek personal or National gain. That is prohibited. To get the provisions of the Universal Declaration one must ABIDE BY IT.

Yes, amazing, isn't it? Those that decry 'liberal views' are saying that individuals should not abide by the Laws of Nations, should not abide by Treaties between Nations, should not enforce mere civil laws within a Nation that are a guaranteed equal protection for those within it.

Nope, can't do that, wouldn't be nice to the international scofflaws!

They are such great people, those making work agreements and conspiring to break international laws and Treaties, donchyaknow? Best of all people if they would just be allowed to do this without ANY adherence to the actual laws involved and treaties. Don't need those things! Totally useless! Be nice and generous and just forget that the United States deserves the exact same full protection of treaties and international law as any other Nation. If they don't uphold the law, well, then why should we? We can just ignore it as millions of individuals have made it irrelevant. Mis-guided. Useless for the modern era.

That is exactly what the 'compassionate' argument boils down to: scrap international law and Treaties.

If the United States cannot abide by the duties and agreements it has signed up to with other Nations, then why do we expect them to do the SAME?

My compassion has an abrupt *end* at the Nation's borders and those agreements that we have signed up to with other Nations.

I really don't care how nice folks who break international laws and Treaties *are* once they arrive on the doorstep of the Nation in their millions.

They have broken the compacts between Nations and refuse to abide by the Sovereignty of the United States to have self-government and direction for its Citizens.

Nor do I have any especial good feelings towards those companies, organizations or individuals who have broken international law from WITHIN the United States to form illegal labor and other goods contracts with Foreign Nationals. That is NOT HANDED TO THEM save when Treaty allows and then only through the functioning procedures of said Treaties. Doing so is a direct contravention of the Constitution of the United States and willful breaking of it for personal or economic gain. I do not seek monetary penalties upon such. If they are companies I want them ended.



Broken up and sold at auction never to appear again.

To those individuals who have not abided by the Constitution of the United States you are liable to Civil Penalties so long as you have helped NO individual from a Nation openly hostile to the United States. If done on your lonesome, you may only find that to be a misdemeanor by the beneficent outlook of Congress via the law. Conspiracy to do this, however, starts to see tougher penalties just due to conspiracy itself. I would like to see mere employment made into a felony, so that the seriousness of enticing illegal aliens to work in the United States is underscored by hard prison time.

I do not say these things because I hate foreigners.

I say them so that MY rights and freedom can be protected and safeguarded by the Government we hold in common. Doing anything else to forgive or reward this activity against the Laws of Nations and the Law of the Land in the United States erodes and demeans my right to have a Nation in common without interference by outsiders together with my fellow Citizens. And so that those of Foreign Nationals may ALSO be kept. That is what reciprocity by Treaty means and upholding the Laws of Nations. Together we are stronger upholding such laws and reinforcing them than in not abiding by them and making them worthless. Otherwise there is a sinking into barbarism as laws are broken for any reason whatsoever and no one is willing to uphold same as they have become meaningless.

For those seeking refuge from persecution for political or religious beliefs that place foreigners at risk of their lives for professing freedom of same, then I do hope you can find asylum with the Nation.

For those seeking to lawfully enter and abide by the laws between the United States and your Nation of origin or for other lawful entry due to other circumstance covered by provisions and Treaties, you are also welcome. By demonstrating adherence to the Laws of Nations and respecting the United States and its laws, you are welcome.

I truly do not mind those with bleeding hearts that feel deeply for the plight of those driven to illegality to try and find a better life.

Slitting the wrists of the Nation and putting National Sovereignty at risk by CONDONING the breaking of international law, Treaties and National Law I have a hard time understanding.

That is the upshot of these actions: removing National Sovereignty and putting NOTHING in its place as this puts forth that mere individuals and companies may now SET immigration and foreign policy for the United States and NOTHING will be done to END IT. And if you enjoy liberty, freedom and the rights you have, then upholding the Laws of Nations and the Treaties between Nations should be of prime and paramount concern above and beyond people trying to 'earn a better living'.

Unless you truly do want to end my rights and yours so that we can no longer guide this Nation together for justice for us, first. Because if we cannot get equal protection under the law *here*, then nothing else matters. And helping those out breaking the Laws of Nations is putting equal protection at home on the chopping block because we no longer hold a Nation in common.

And I don't like the direction of that one, little bit.

No comments: