 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
elitism (control of economic resources by an elite) |
Somehow this sounds more like Enron than Castro.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
And, HO, just how does a private company "control" the resources of a country?
|
By having amazingly good links to the government.
"a quick survey of human rights and emmigration reveals that emmigration is considered an aspect of liberty, that restricting it is indeed a human rights violation."
Emigration is a right under several human rights texts, immigration is not. Sounds odd, but makes sense. A state may not forbid its citizens to leave, but a state can forbid others to come to that country.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
That's the law for you....
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
For any refugees fleeing a country that restricts emmigration. |
If, for some reason, tens of thousands of Americans decided they wanted to leave the US from Alaska by crossing the Bearing Straights during winter, a crossing which likely likel result in the death of most of them, do you not think the government ought to try and prevent them from doing so?
What you and others like to ignore is that there is a service bureau in Havana that can grant VISAs to Cubans legally. These people are allowed to leave Cuba and come to the US, legally. They are not harrassed.
You keep IGNORING the fact that the policy by both Cuba and the US is designed to save lives.
You also ignore my repeated question (in another thread): if Cuba is so bad politically, why aren't Cubans fleeing to the Bahamas and Haiti, both of which are closer and safer to get to.
Anyway, it's not as if Castro doesn't want people coming to America. Don't you know what a huge source of foreign currency for Cuba is? It's Cubans sending money home from the US. Just like with almost every other immigrant group, most people who come here do so in order to send money back home to help their familes. Are their families better off if they drown, are eaten by sharks, or die of thirst on the way over?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sprayber
No Ned. You are so much smarter than me and the rest of us. Please give us access to your vast store of knowledge and moral fortitude |
Sprayber, Emmigration occurs when you leave a jurisdiction intending to reside permanently elsewhere. The Supreme Court ruled long ago in the United States that free emmigration was a aspect of liberty protected by the privileges and immunities clause from abridement by States.
See: WILLIAMS v. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, 274 (1900):
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution."
The right to move from one state to another was expressly recognized in EDWARDS v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 (1941). See also Saenz v. Roe, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...us/526/489.html
As HO said in an early post, the right of emmigration is a recognized human right under several United Nations texts.
Immigration is when one enters a jurisdiction intending to reside there. There is no universally recognized right of immigration. However, the right is recognized in the United States for citizens of the United States so that they may immigrate into, reside and become citizens of any state they choose.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sprayber
Remind me again how you get from wanting Cubans to enter the country at will and talking about a person moving from state to state. Are you asserting that movement between American states is the same as movement from Cuba to the United States?
Don't fall for the Texas tourism folks when they tell you it's like a whole other country. |
I'm sorry Sprayber, but the problem is Cuba's prohibition on emmigration. The Cuban people really have no legitimate means from moving out of their country to anywhere else in the world, let alone the US. In the case of every other country in this hemisphere, people have legal means for applying for entry into the United States. The Cubans do not. When a Mexican enters "illegally," he or she is avoiding the proper legal channels which many law abiding people follow. When a Cuban flees his country for America, he or she is not simply avoiding US immigration law. He or she is breaking the Cuban law on emmigration.
Now Castro apologists may say that the refugees are not "harrassed" upon return. The Cuban community insist that refugees face servere punishment and possible execution.
As I noted in my original post, not once, never did we return a refugee from East German to the communists. Not once. We never did in the case of the Cubans either, until, that is, the glorious presidency of Bill Clinton. Now George Bush, for some hypocritical reason, has chosen to continue the Clinton policy of debasement of liberty. I have no idea why - but it certainly makes a mockery of our efforts in Iraq.
Last edited by Ned on 03-08-2003 at 09:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Although the US Constitution expressly states that citizens are dual citizens of the United States and the states in which they reside, and sovereignty of the several states was expressly recognized in the Articles of Confederation and never denied in the Constitution, the term "immigration" in Federal law has never applied to entrance or establishment of residency from one state to another.
In the places it was used in state laws (i.e. the Anti-Chinese laws), the intent was not to regulate "immigration" generally of residents of any state, but to use that false regulatory veneer to restrict the entry of "them" - whoever the undesirable "them" of the moment might be. |
Yes, but the cases I quoted were cases where states did try to limit immigration from other states. The Edwards v. California was all about California trying to keep the migrant Oklahomans out. Here is a bit from Douglas's concurring opinion. His views have prevailed.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring.
I express no view on whether or not the statute here in question runs afoul of Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution granting to Congress the power 'to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.' But I am of the opinion that the right of persons to move freely from State to State occupies a more protected position in our constitutional system than does the movement of cattle, fruit, steel and coal across state lines. While the opinion of the Court expresses no view on that issue, the right involved is so fundamental that I deem it appropriate to indicate the reach of the constitutional question which is present. The right to move freely from State to State is an incident of national citizenship protected by the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against state interference. Mr. Justice Moody in Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 97 stated, 'Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States ... are only such as arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, or are specifically granted or secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United States.' And he went on to state that one of those rights of national citizenship was 'the right to pass freely from state to state'. Now it is apparent that this right is not specifically granted by the Constitution. Yet before the Fourteenth Amendment it was recognized as a right fundamental to the national character of our Federal government. It was so decided in 1867 by Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 39. In that case this Court struck down a Nevada tax 'upon every person leaving the State' by common carrier. Mr. Justice Miller writing for the Court held that the right to move freely throughout the nation was a right of national citizenship. That the right was implied did not make it any the less 'guaranteed' by the Constitution. To be sure, he emphasized that the Nevada statute would obstruct the right of a citizen to travel to the seat of his national government or its offices throughout the country. And see United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281, 299 . But there is not a shred of evidence in the record of the Crandall case that the persons there involved were en route on any such mission any more than it appears in this case that Duncan entered California to interview some federal agency. The point which Mr. Justice Miller made was merely in illustration of the damage and havoc which would ensue if the States had the power to prevent the free movement of citizens from one State to another. This is emphasized by his quotation from Chief Justice Taney's dissenting opinion in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492: 'We are all citizens of the United States, and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States.' Hence the dictum in United States v. Wheeler, which attempts to limit the Crandall case to a holding that the statute in question directly burdened 'the performance by the United States of its governmental functions' and limited the 'rights of the citizens growing out of such functions,' does not bear analysis.
So, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 it had been squarely and authoritatively settled that the right to move freely from State to State was a right of national citizenship. As such it was protected by the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against state interference. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 74, 79. In the latter case Mr. Justice Miller recognized that it was so 'protected by implied guarantees' of the Constitution. Id., 16 Wall. page 79. That was also acknowledged in Twining v. State of New Jersey, supra. And Chief Justice Fuller in Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274 , stated: 'Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.'
In the face of this history I cannot accede to the suggestionthat the commerce clause is the appropriate explanation of Crandall v. Nevada, supra. Two of the Justices in that case expressly put the decision on the commerce clause; the others put it on the broader ground of rights of national citizenship, Mr. Justice Miller stating that 'we do not concede that the question before us is to be determined' by the commerce clause. On that broader ground it should continue to rest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
I'm sorry Sprayber, but the problem is Cuba's prohibition on emmigration. |
What is the current status of the 1980's deal that allowed a quota of 20000 emigrants to the US? It's been suspended a couple times, but IIRC it is still in place now...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003 23:36
|