I am aware my above comment is a bit out of context of what Emerson was saying. My comment was to a broader picture.

That is one option. Mahatma Gandhi offered another option. Jesus the Christ's (the King of Kings) resurrection displayed a completely different conclusion.

Robert, I say hmmm. Your woke religion's dogmas are antithetical to nature's law. FYI, theft at any level is contrary to law. Resorting back to an immoral caste system for justification of newer version thereof only works in a statist theocracy of dupes.

The de jure States united was to be a "republican form of government" at the "laws of nature and of nature's God." (Declaration of Independence) Those noted as representatives were to represent nature's law which was/is common and equal to each and every sovereign individual. Abilities, capacities, needs, wants, etc. are uniquely different to/with each and ever person — THUS — such can NOT equally be represented in a body politic of We The People. Taxes, like the 2nd plank of the communist manifesto, are an abandonment of nature's law in favor a totalitarian enslavement of the any and all — THUS — by definition disallowing any representation.

Within the de jure States united there is a separation of powers; namely, independent Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches. Each has their own policies, procedures, administrations and rules. By example; within the Legislative and the Judicial Branches, a founding premise at nature’s law is: “a person is innocent until proven guilty.” Enforcement proceedings within the Executive Branch (right, wrong or indifferent) may declare a person guilty until proven innocent” (such are tax courts and traffic tickets - {each State has a written policy to effect that status}). Immediate enforcement activities (policing exercises) under the executive branch may or may not include a judicial or legislative branch’s absolutes.

Your reference to border defense has a couple of Constitutional citations which use the word “invasion”. Protecting against invasion has narrow legal and military meanings. At Article IV, Section. 4, Clause 1 it says: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;” and, at Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 it says: The Congress shall have Power: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

Invasion means: “The entry of a country by a public enemy, making war.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary); or, “⋯ the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder.” (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Immigration does not fit within any meaning of invasion (legally, militarily or otherwise). Immigration means: “The removing into one place from another. It differs from emigration, which is the moving from one place into another.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) Or, “The coming into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.” (Black’s Law Dictionary) Or, “The entrance into a country of foreigners for the purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term emigration denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.” (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2)

The word “defend” only shows up once in the Constitution and that is at Article II, Section 1, Clause 7. That is in reference to the President’s oath / affirmation of office.

It is my firm understanding that unchecked or non-regulated immigration is an affront to a nation (as united sovereigns at law). Because there is NO de jure States united at nature’s law, no semblance of original common law and no republican form of government defined by a Constitution, I will keep referencing what should be.

Archer, of course you are right (-; BUT :-) under fleshly philosophy of men (legal positivism most specifically) — unless it is written; it ain't so. Immigration was such an important topic and event to the several States, that authority was not given to the federal government. To my knowledge, each State operated its immigration policy(s) within the common law sovereign authority of the individuals within the State; subsequently, no State has put forth a written policy concerning immigration. The federal government (having in fact NO common law authority) usurped unconstitutional power to enact federal immigration policy.

As to Spooner's here quote, we hold this truth to be self evident to all those who have eyes to see, ears to hear, a brain to think and a soul to feel.

A government of, by and for people is antithetical to a government of nature's law. The individual sovereign with acknowledged inalienable rights and liberty at the "laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) is enslaved by totalitarianism's tyranny, despostism and usurpations (i.e., compelled compliance, government licenses, victimless crimes, larceny with immunity {2nd plank of the communist manifesto, funny money, confiscations, etc.}, and a lack of perfected allodium.

A legal foundation of the de jure States united's republic was stated by William Blackstone:  "It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted."

Originally, there were 13 sovereign states with the traditional power over immigration.

An accepted maxim of law? —  Not a law itself,  hmmm. Obviously couching the concept in the philosophy of legal positivism. If the "maxim" is of international law; what is stated by national law. An overview probably rates 5 stars.

It is interesting that Justice Roberts referenced a stare decisis of 100 years rather than an explicit verbiage within the Constitution. It is tradition for the head of government's executive branch to declare what it is going to enforce (whether of not Congress has formally made it regulation or even addressed the issue). It is a matter of usurpation, totalitarianism and tyranny for the 3 separate branches to treat such subject actions as law until overturned by one of the 3 branches. I'm not saying Trump's actions were unconstitutional (they were in my opinion beneficial to the nation), I just cant find that specific clause in the Constitution that legitimises the act.

With the Constitution's 9th and 10th Amendments (Bill of Rigts) in mind, please — anyone, show me the specific clause that gives to the U.S. federal government authority or power over the subject of immigration ! ! !  I seem to have missed or otherwise overlooked that clause. It is very clear the federal government has been given authority and power over the subject of citizenship and protection against State invaders (countries, organized groups {cartels, political organizations, religions, etc.} but NOTHING concerning immigration.  Maybe I'm wrong, please show me.

Ronw13, well said.

WOW !   I like it a lot.  the psychoses of hate and destructiveness is a driving mantra of socialists, neocons, the left & right and the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land. Patron slaves say give me enough to subsist on and it is all right if you hate and destroy individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty at nature's law.

To the quote: amen, amen & amen

🤪 some of it has to do with the costs ;-)

Who wants? Informed? Patriotism? I would absolutely agree with a 10 star rating if I were defining; informed and patriotism. With Regan not doing much about the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land, especially with its compelled compliance, government licenses, victimless crimes, larceny with impunity (2nd plank of the communist manifesto, funny money, government confiscations, etc.) and a lack of recognition of individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty at nature's law; — I'm not quite sure what he ment by this quote.

It can, I like it a lot

The only true, based on substance, chainmail strength and “wise” laws that create a noble nation are laws that fall within the realm of “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence). Man’s (carnal god’s) philosophies (legal positivism, legal realism, etc.) called laws for demonic justification are in fact an encumbrance and stumbling block to the royal specie, man.

How is remedy here defined? Anon., I agree, force is generally short term. Police force, though it is used at times for justifiable benefit (short term), in most part it advances a continuing fear and obedience to malefactor totalitarianism.

Personally doing what is right, as it does not inflict another "IS" the beginning of liberty.

The dignity of man is a faculty of birth. Deserving honors or accolades are earned according to man's perceptions.

How many of the noble family even have a conscience conception of what liberty is. Liberty is innate in all of our Father's posterity BUT !!!, who can express an actual and true essence thereof or what liberty means. The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land, complete with its national establishment of religion proselytizes its enslaving false dogma; such as, compelled compliance, victimless crimes, government licensing, larceny with impunity (2nd plank of the communist manifesto, government/priesthood confiscations, etc.) along with non-recognition of liberty, inalienable rights or perfected allodium.

Anonymous: really short and to the point, how does your understanding of the Bible explain or coordinate 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Revelations 20:12, 13 (these 2 scriptures popped into my head as I recently used them in this blog),