Congressional Dems to open ObamaCare to illegals?

Ah, proper terminology with respect to those who are not of our Nation but come here without our leave! Yes, this is under the Law of Nations, Book I by Emmerich de Vattel, first with the question of settlement:

§ 218. Settlement.
Settlement is a fixed residence in any place, with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his settlement in any place, unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not transfer his settlement elsewhere. In this sense, a person who stops at a place upon business, even though he stay a long time, has only a simple habitation there, but has no settlement. Thus, the envoy of a foreign prince has not his settlement at the court where he resides.

The natural, or original settlement, is that which we acquire by birth, in the place where our father has his; and we are considered as retaining it, till we have abandoned it, in order to choose another. The acquired settlement (adscititium) is that where we settle by our own choice.

§ 219. Vagrants.
Vagrants are people who have no settlement. Consequently, those born of vagrant parents have no country, since a man’s country is the place where, at the time of his birth, his parents had their settlement (§ 122), or it is the state of which his father was then a member, which comes to the same point; for, to settle for ever in a nation, is to become a member of it, at least as a perpetual inhabitant, if not with all the privileges of a citizen. We may, however, consider the country of a vagrant to be that of his child, while that vagrant is considered as not having absolutely renounced his natural or original settlement.

Now by the Law of Nations those here illegally are vagrants without settlement, seeking to use the ancient birthright Nationality concept to their favor to become citizens. That is not, howver, the end of the matter as we read onwards:

§ 223. Cases in which a citizen has a right to quit his country.
There are cases in which a citizen has an absolute right to renounce his country, and abandon it entirely — a right founded on reasons derived from the very nature of the social compact. 1. If the citizen cannot procure subsistence in his own country, it is undoubtedly lawful for him to seek it elsewhere. For, political or civil society being entered into only with a view of facilitating to each of its members the means of supporting himself, and of living in happiness and safety, it would be absurd to pretend that a member, whom it cannot furnish with such things as are most necessary, has not a right to leave it.

2. If the body of the society, or he who represents it, absolutely fail to discharge their obligations towards a citizen, the latter may withdraw himself. For, if one of the contracting parties does not observe his engagements, the other is no longer bound to fulfil his; as the contract is reciprocal between the society and its members. It is on the same principle, also, that me society may expel a member who violates its laws.

3. If the major part of the nation, or the sovereign who represents it, attempt to enact laws relative to matters in which the social compact cannot oblige every citizen to submission, those who are averse to these laws have a right to quit the society, and go settle elsewhere. For instance, if the sovereign, or the greater part of the nation, will allow but one religion in the state, those who believe and profess another religion have a right to withdraw, and take with mem their families and effects. For, they cannot be supposed to have subjected themselves to the authority of men, in affairs of conscience;3 and if the society suffers and is weakened by their departure, the blame must be imputed to the intolerant party; for it is they who fail in their observance of the social compact — it is they who violate it, and force the others to a separation. We have elsewhere touched upon some other instances of this third case, — that of a popular state wishing to have a sovereign (§ 33), and that of an independent nation taking the resolution to submit to a foreign power (§ 195).

§ 224. Emigrants.
Those who quit their country for any lawful reason, with a design to settle elsewhere, and take their families and property with them, are called emigrants.

§ 225. Sources of their right
Their right to emigrate may arise from several sources. 1. In the cases we have just mentioned (§ 223), it is a natural right, which is certainly reserved to each individual in the very compact itself by which civil society was formed.

2. The liberty of emigration may, in certain cases, be secured to the citizens by a fundamental law of the state. The citizens of Neufchatel and Valangin in Switzerland may quit the country and carry off their effects at their own pleasure, without even paying any duties.

3. It may be voluntarily granted them by the sovereign.

4. This right may be derived from some treaty made with a foreign power, by which a sovereign has promised to leave full liberty to those of his subjects, who, for a certain reason — on account of religion, for instance — desire to transplant themselves into me territories of that power. There are such treaties between the German princes, particularly for cases in which religion is concerned. In Switzerland likewise, a citizen of Bern who wishes to emigrate to Fribourg, and there profess the religion of the place, and, reciprocally, a citizen of Fribourg who, for a similar reason, is desirous of removing to Bern, has a right to quit his native country, and carry off with him all his property.

It appears from several passages in history, particularly the history of Switzerland and the neighbouring countries, that the law of nations, established there by custom some ages back, did not permit a state to receive the subjects of another state into the number of its citizens. This vicious custom had no other foundation than the slavery to which the people were then reduced. A prince, a lord, ranked his subjects under the head of his private property; he calculated their number as he did that of his flocks; and, to the disgrace of human nature, this strange abuse is not yet everywhere eradicated.

§226. If the sovereign infringes their right, he injures them.
If the sovereign attempts to molest those who have a right to emigrate, he does them an injury; and the injured individuals may lawfully implore the protection of the power who is willing to receive them. Thus we have seen Frederic William, king of Prussia, grant his protection to the emigrant Protestants of Saltzburgh.

§227. Supplicants.
The name of supplicants is given to all fugitives who implore the protection of a sovereign against the nation or prince they have quitted. We cannot solidly establish what the law of nations determines with respect to them, until we have treated of the duties of one nation towards others.

Now it gets to the heart of the matter! The argument is that these people cannot find sustenance in their own Nation, which we cannot adjudge on an overview of all individuals who are making themselves vagrants. With that said they have the right to seek to LEAVE their Nation. That can be done on a temporary basis for business purposes, of course, but must adhere to the laws of the Nation they are heading to. If they are seeking to leave permanently, then they have the right to leave if they adhere to the strictures between Nations. If they head to a State that has close ties and agreements for consentual citizenship, then that may be done. This is rarely the case, however, thus they have the avenue to appeal to the sovereign of the destination State, which in the case of the US is our federal governmental body assigned this duty which is Congress. Congress has set up rules for this, however, for those seeking asylum, and these vagrants are not seeking that. Thus they are stuck with the Treaty arrangments (or lack thereof) between their mother country and their destination country. As those are in place save for a very few Nations, and we offer asylum to those people from those Nations, that means that under Treaty those individuals seeking to come to the US must go through regularized channels set up between our Nation and their mother country and then abide by all laws in the US for applying to be a citizen.

They are not supplicants who have been banished for one reason or another: they have left voluntarily. Supplicants have an asylum procedure to go through, in any event.

Thus the proper term for those here from another country without following Treaty obligations and US law is: vagrants.

Some few of those are trying to exploit ancient custom while they still retain ties to their mother country and that is: disloyalty to their mother Nation as it has Treaty ties with the US, save for those seeking asylum here.

That means that not only are they breaking US law, they are breaking the Treaty with their mother Nation and liable to be breaking laws in their mother Nation for doing these things, plus liable for any and all punishments stipulated in the Treaty for those not following its obligations signed on to by both Nations.

Thus, our obligation upon finding those that are not seeking asylum, who do not follow our laws and who have broken a Treaty obligation is: try them for violation of our laws and any treaty obligations and, once they have served that term out, they can be sent to their mother Nation for further prosecution. Of course things can be worked out for more expediency in trials, deciding what the punishments will be, etc.

Somehow we don’t need to reinvent this wheel, just use it like it was made to be used.

ajacksonian on September 28, 2009 at 3:39 PM