6 responses so far ↓

• 1 G.E. // Jun 30, 2008 at 12:51 am

  Don’t you mean “closed border” activists?

• 2 G.E. // Jun 30, 2008 at 12:51 am

  “Operation Close America Now”? j/k

• 3 Trent Hill // Jun 30, 2008 at 12:54 am

  GE,

  I actually considered it. Save Our State basically is “Closed borders”, but the rest are mostly “secure borders”–so it was a tough call. =)

  Baldwin had like 5 campaign events this weekend, like 9 next week, and Darrell Castle had one this week and one next week–clearly the campaign actually IS finally launching. I think the strategy is interesting. Aiming for Ron Paul voters via Chuck Baldwin and veterans and anti-illegal immigration activists via Darrell Castle with support from Baldwin.

• 4 Mike Theodore // Jun 30, 2008 at 1:01 am

  All seems a little dusty to me.
  Whatever that means.

• 5 NewFederalist // Jun 30, 2008 at 7:59 am

  What is the status of Baldwin/Castle being on the CA ballot? I read on TPW that the AIP has disaffiliated.

• 6 pdsa // Jun 30, 2008 at 11:39 am

  A political organisation that calls itself “The Constitution Party”, and adamantly claims it desires a return to Original Constitutional Intent is playing dodge-ball with the truth, when it openly supports anti-immigration initiatives.

  Many of the Nation’s Founders believed that expatriation was a natural right. Without a natural right to expatriation, The Declaration of Independence would not have been a revolutionary assertion of individual liberty, but instead only rebellious criminal subjects of the English Crown.

  Not all of the Founders were willing to advance expatritaion to the reverent position of a Natural Right, but many were:

  “This involves the great question as to the right of expatriation, upon which so much has been said in this cause. Perhaps it is not necessary it should be explicitly decided on this occasion; but I shall freely express my sentiments on the subject. [p162] That a man ought not to be a slave; that he should not be confined against his will to a particular spot, because he happened to draw his first breath upon it; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he must starve in one country, and may live comfortably in another: are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and they are such as most nations in the world appear clearly to recognize.”

  Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, Talbot v. Janson, 1795

  It should be self-evident what Thomas Jefferson believed about expatriation. The U.S. Government pressed the concept into international law forums in the mid to latter 19th century:

  expatriation: loss of nationality. Such loss is usually, although not necessarily, voluntary. Generally it applies to those persons who have renounced nationality and citizenship in one country to become citizens or subjects of another. According to U.S. law, for example, a citizen who becomes naturalized i.n a foreign state is automatically expatriated. . .The common law view that one’s allegiance cannot be renounced without the state’s permission prevailed until 1868 when the United States challenged this doctrine in order to protect its naturalized immigrants against the claims of their native states, which did not recognize the right of subjects to expatriate themselves. Congress declared voluntary expatriation to be “a natural and inherent right of all people,” and announced that the United States would protect its naturalized citizens abroad, even in their native countries. Great Britain abandoned the common-law interpretation in 1870.

  The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition

Leave a Comment