# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  "Rights" do not come from the "Constitution"...

## ChristianAnarchist

Total confusion about what "rights" are and where they come from...

"I am not going to dwell on the legality of Trumps statement because it  is already established. Apart from the fact that the American  Constitution does not give any rights to foreigners, according to the  federal Immigration and Nationality Act, Whenever the president finds  that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United  States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he  may by proclamation, and for such period as he deems necessary, suspend  the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens."

http://archive.is/kn8RB

This is how people lose sight of the issues and get on the wrong track...
RIGHTS come from the Creator!!  They do not come from the "Constitution" and certainly not from the goonerment!!  I guess you can say that the opinion above is correct in that the constitution does not give rights to "foreigners" since it does not give rights to ANYONE.  

So if one realized the truth that rights come from the Creator and not the goonerment then you can see that there's no way to make an argument that an immigrant has LESS rights than a "citizen".  You will be in a position of saying that God has granted certain rights to some people but denied that right to others.  I don't think God works that way.  Even the clowns in the Supreme Court have ruled that everyone has the same rights (but then they inconsistently deny rights to certain people...)  See Yick Wo v. Hopkins. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/118/356

Are certain "foreigners" a problem?  Yes they are.  Are we supposed to deny any access to God's country because some people are bad??  Better ask God about that - I don't think he agrees...

----------


## presence

correct.  

I'm with you 110% here.

immigrants can be granted fewer entitlements but have no less inherent, natural, God given rights

the exercise of any or all of our inherent rights without creating a victim of theft or violence is liberty

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> correct.  
> 
> I'm with you 110% here.
> 
> immigrants can be granted fewer entitlements but have no less inherent, natural, God given rights
> 
> the exercise of any or all of our inherent rights without creating a victim of theft or violence is liberty


And one of the rights granted by our Creator (I believe) is the right to travel freely... All you closed border people who claim to be Christians please explain how the Creator gave you more rights than someone from "over there"...

----------


## Ender

> correct.  
> 
> I'm with you 110% here.
> 
> immigrants can be granted fewer entitlements but have no less inherent, natural, God given rights
> 
> the exercise of any or all of our inherent rights without creating a victim of theft or violence is liberty


Agree-

This is why many of the states were hesitant about the Constitution and why the BoR was added in the first place. Freedom does NOT come from government.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> And one of the rights granted by our Creator (I believe) is the right to travel freely... All you closed border people who claim to be Christians please explain how the Creator gave you more rights than someone from "over there"...


Is there a list of rights the Creator has give us?  Maybe in the Bible?

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Is there a list of rights the Creator has give us?  Maybe in the Bible?


There's only one list I know of... it says "all"...

----------


## presence

> Is there a list of rights the Creator has give us?  Maybe in the Bible?



1 Corinthians 16:14

do everything in love

Gospel of Thomas 6

 don't do what you hate

Luke 6:31

and as ye would that men should do to you, 
do ye also to  them likewise

----------


## PierzStyx

This quote really just drove the last nail in the coffin of any support I had for Rand Paul. It has become clear to me that he hasn't the basic understanding of what rights are or where they come from. Of course the Constitution doesn't give immigrants any rights. It doesn't give anybody rights. You already have ALL rights. The Constitution is meant to protect everybody's rights, including immigrants and foreigners, from government interference. Of course it doesn't actually do that, but that was the original selling argument.

It amazes me how few on here understand rights.

----------


## fedupinmo

That the "immigrants" have rights is not questioned... however the Constitution only binds the gov to defend the rights of its citizens, and sometimes it binds gov to protect the citizen's right at the expense of the foreigner, especially when the foreigner is 9 times out of 10 going to yell for more socialism.
Myself, I would like to see immigration halted until we can get our own liberty back in order, without that extra competition.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Are certain "foreigners" a problem?  Yes they are.  Are we supposed to deny any access to God's country because some people are bad??  Better ask God about that - I don't think he agrees...


I'll bet he does.  Don't forget that God has no problem laying out a litmus test for those who will be allowed in Heaven.

----------


## Ender

> I'll bet he does.  Don't forget that God has no problem laying out a litmus test for those who will be allowed in Heaven.


Yeah, the litmus is 2 fold-

*Love God with all your heart, might, mind and strength.*

*Love your neighbor as yourself.*

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It amazes me how few on here understand rights.


Well, let me ask you something since you know so much. Does a person who is not an citizen of this country possess the right to come here and be left alone by our government (of, by, and for the people) to pursue his happiness? Whatever it may be. We don't always know, of course. Maybe he gets off on blowing 5 year olds up at school, talking about Allahu Akbar or something sweet like that because, you know, he feels it's his God-given moral responsibility, duty, and natural right. If so, then how? Additionally, and given that American citizens delegate their government with Just Powers in order to protect their Individual rights, how would your foreign citizen excercise his right to prohibit American government from bothering him once he is here? While I've read the moral case for unalienable rights, there also exists a responsibility or duty for every right that American citizens (again, whom delegate their government's just powers)  have. Which, when  broken down, means simply Right-Duty, Feedom-Responsibility, and ultimately this equates to Liberty-Responsibility as an inseparable whole. Share with us your wisdom.

Thank You, PierzStyx.

----------


## Natural Citizen

As an after-thought, it's my view that most of the comments here are likely from people who actually reject the very notion of the constitution and the traditional American philosophy of governance as a whole. Put up a poll and I'll guarantee it. I've been around here long enough to know. 

It's truly amazing how many different factions we have gathering under the liberty banner, though. In many cases, some are actually working against it. But you'd never know it to hear them tell it.

Any casual passers-by who may happen across this thread, my advice is to be very careful who you listen to. Some people will have you thinking you're working in favor of the cause of Individual Liberty when you're actually working to forward anarchy/socialism/ or about a half-dozen other isms. And they won't ever tell you otherwise. They'll just turn you loose to spread their bullsht. It's one of the main reasons I don't like people who merely identify as libertarian. Read what they type for five minutes and you'll sure as sht see otherwise if you know what it is that you're actually looking at and understand what they're truly arguing against.

The original text of the Constitution clearly says We The People. The Constitution is a document FOR the United States. *Not Of*. This distinction is very, very important to recognize as the tail tries to wag the dog. And what we are seeing more and more these days, mainly in places like this when the anarchsts start popping off, is people argue against the constitution in a way that projects the notion that the document was written OF the United States of America while completely ignoring (likely they don't even know) that It was written *FOR* We The People of the United States of America. Nobody else.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Well, let me ask you something since you know so much. Does a person who is not an citizen of this country possess the right to come here and be left alone by our government (of, by, and for the people) to pursue his happiness? Whatever it may be. We don't always know, of course. Maybe he gets off on blowing 5 year old up at school, talking abour Allahu Akbar or something sweet like that because, you know, he feels it's his God-given moral responsibility, duty, and right. If so, then how? Additionally, and given that American citizens delegate their government with Just Powers in order to protect their Individual rights, how would your foreign citizen excercise his right to prohibit American government from bothering him once he is here? While I've read the moral case for unalienable rights, there also exists a responsibility or duty for every right that American citizens (again, whom delegate their government's just powers)  have. Which, when  broken down, means simply Right-Duty, Feedom-Responsibility, and ultimately this equates to Liberty-Responsibility as an inseparable whole. Share
> with us your wisdom.
> 
> Thank You, PierzStyx.


I don't recall "delegating" anything to a "goonerment" and "they" certainly don't care what I say or believe...
Also "Just Powers" would be great if you could actually hold the goonerment goons to that.

----------


## TommyJeff

Correct!
rights aren't given to us by a document.  


But your point about immigration is confusing.  While a foreigner has the "right" to happiness, that does not mean the foreigner can enter my house if it makes them happy.  

A creator gives the rights to all regardless of geographic location, right?  You're not suggesting foreigners currently are without natural rights, are you?  I'm in total agreement with your subject and confused by the dots you're trying to connect to immigration.  Would you explain please

----------


## TommyJeff

> The Constitution is meant to protect everybody's rights, including immigrants and foreigners, from government interference.


What?

Did you mean this?

the constitution of the United States of America protects foreigners?

----------


## Ender

> What?
> 
> Did you mean this?
> 
> the constitution of the United States of America protects foreigners?


Yes- the Declaration states exactly what are the rights of all men.

What is necessary is an understanding of Common Law and property rights; the combination of those 2 precepts along with no federal entitlements/regulations etc. would certainly bring a breath of fresh liberty to all concerned.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yeah, the litmus is 2 fold-
> 
> *Love God with all your heart, might, mind and strength.*
> 
> *Love your neighbor as yourself.*


BONG.  Wrong.  Try again.

----------


## TommyJeff

> Yes- the Declaration states exactly what are the rights of all men.
> 
> What is necessary is an understanding of Common Law and property rights; the combination of those 2 precepts along with no federal entitlements/regulations etc. would certainly bring a breath of fresh liberty to all concerned.


Declaring rights may be universal, but the United States constitution doesn't apply to a iraqi citizen in iraq.  Are you suggesting different?

----------


## Ender

> BONG.  Wrong.  Try again.


^^^BETTER TO THOUGHT A FOOL THAN TO POST STUPID ANSWERS AND BE KNOWN AS ONE ^^^

----------


## Ender

> Declaring rights may be universal, but the United States constitution doesn't apply to a iraqi citizen in iraq.  Are you suggesting different?


Not at all- but it does apply to an Iraqi in the US.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Declaring rights may be universal, but the United States constitution doesn't apply to a iraqi citizen in iraq.  Are you suggesting different?


You are actually right on both counts but for reasons that I doubt you believe.  Yes, rights are universal as they come from the Creator and cannot exist differently for men in different parts of the globe... And yes, the "constitution" doesn't apply to an Iraqi citizen just as it doesn't apply to a "US citizen"...  If the "constitution" has any authority at all (I don't see that it does) it would only apply to the US goonerment... not to US citizens (or any citizens)...

----------


## Ender

> You are actually right on both counts but for reasons that I doubt you believe.  Yes, rights are universal as they come from the Creator and cannot exist differently for men in different parts of the globe... And yes, the "constitution" doesn't apply to an Iraqi citizen just as it doesn't apply to a "US citizen"...  If the "constitution" has any authority at all (I don't see that it does) *it would only apply to the US goonerment... not to US citizens (or any citizens)..*.


Actually, this is true- the Constitution was for the government, not the people.

----------


## timosman

> That the "immigrants" have rights is not questioned... however the Constitution only binds the gov to defend the rights of its citizens, and sometimes it binds gov to protect the citizen's right at the expense of the foreigner, especially when the foreigner is 9 times out of 10 going to yell for more socialism.
> Myself, I would like to see immigration halted until we can get our own liberty back in order, without that extra competition.


Enough of this $#@!?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Is there a list of rights the Creator has give us?  Maybe in the Bible?


We don't need a list. But yes, the Bible does contain specific moral injunctions, which are corollaries to rights (i.e. do not steal).

----------


## Superfluous Man

> What?
> 
> Did you mean this?
> 
> the constitution of the United States of America protects foreigners?


Sure. It limits the powers of the federal government. At least supposedly.

If the federal government stays within its limitations, that protects all people from having their rights violated by it, does it not?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Well, let me ask you something since you know so much. Does a person who is not an citizen of this country possess the right to come here and be left alone by our government (of, by, and for the people) to pursue his happiness? Whatever it may be. We don't always know, of course. Maybe he gets off on blowing 5 year olds up at school, talking about Allahu Akbar or something sweet like that because, you know, he feels it's his God-given moral responsibility, duty, and natural right. If so, then how? Additionally, and given that American citizens delegate their government with Just Powers in order to protect their Individual rights, how would your foreign citizen excercise his right to prohibit American government from bothering him once he is here? While I've read the moral case for unalienable rights, there also exists a responsibility or duty for every right that American citizens (again, whom delegate their government's just powers)  have. Which, when  broken down, means simply Right-Duty, Feedom-Responsibility, and ultimately this equates to Liberty-Responsibility as an inseparable whole. Share with us your wisdom.
> 
> Thank You, PierzStyx.


Nobody has a right to violate the rights of others.

That has nothing to do with whether or not they're foreigners.

----------


## timosman

> We don't need a list. But yes, the Bible does contain specific moral injunctions, which are corollaries to rights (i.e. do not steal).


US citizenship?

----------


## Matt Collins

Serious question.... is illegal immigration trespassing, or should the government not have anything to do with the supply and price curves of labor?

----------


## timosman

> Serious question.... is illegal immigration trespassing, or should the government not have anything to do with the supply and price curves of labor?


Is this a serious question?

----------


## agitator

The Chinese military has the right to travel here, all of them. (It's God given)

----------


## fedupinmo

> Serious question.... is illegal immigration trespassing, or should the government not have anything to do with the supply and price curves of labor?


It's invasion. Article IV, Section 4.

----------


## TommyJeff

> You are actually right on both counts but for reasons that I doubt you believe. Why do you say this?  What do you believe im missing? 
> 
> Yes, rights are universal as they come from the Creator and cannot exist differently for men in different parts of the globe... And yes, the "constitution" doesn't apply to an Iraqi citizen just as it doesn't apply to a "US citizen"...  If the "constitution" has any authority at all (I don't see that it does) *it would only apply to the US goonerment... not to US citizens* (or any citizens)...


great point (in bold above). Very well said

----------


## TommyJeff

> Not at all- but it does apply to an Iraqi in the US.


We agree.  

I may not have been clear before when saying _foreigners_.  I should have said foreigners on non US soil.

----------


## TommyJeff

> Sure. It limits the powers of the federal government. At least supposedly.
> 
> If the federal government stays within its limitations, that protects all people from having their rights violated by it, does it not?


Not when a foreigner is living on non-US soil.  I trust you don't believe the US has the authority to tell other countries and other governments what to do.  
The limitations are specific to the United States jurisdiction and the people residing there.  It isn't a limitation for other governments in other lands.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Serious question.... is illegal immigration trespassing, or should the government not have anything to do with the supply and price curves of labor?


If you believe in "public lands" then the immigrant cannot be "trespassing" on "public lands".  Private lands are a different story and anyone who does not have permission would be trespassing whether immigrant or not.

No, goonerment should not have anything to do with labor...

----------


## otherone

"Rights", as they stand now, are any activity the government approves of.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> The Chinese military has the right to travel here, all of them. (It's God given)


Actually I believe this to be true.  The issue changes to what they do when they get here.  Do they use violence against "the people" or do they take money from the "goonerment" in the form of welfare?  Both of these are acts they have no "right" do do and the people have the right to defend themselves against such activity.  "The People", if armed, are sufficient to protect against such invasion...

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Serious question.... is illegal immigration trespassing, or should the government not have anything to do with the supply and price curves of labor?


No, illegal immigration is not trespassing.

But the laws that make illegal immigration illegal are trespassing, since they tell Americans who they can and can't have on their own property.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Not when a foreigner is living on non-US soil.  I trust you don't believe the US has the authority to tell other countries and other governments what to do.  
> The limitations are specific to the United States jurisdiction and the people residing there.  It isn't a limitation for other governments in other lands.


Of course it isn't a limitation to other governments. It's a limitation to the federal government. And it doesn't merely limit it in its actions against US citizens.

----------


## fedupinmo

> "Rights", as they stand now, are any activity the government approves of.


By extension and necessity, rights are any activity the people are willing to insist upon and defend. The goob hasn't gotten around to taking the rest yet.

----------


## otherone

> By extension and necessity, rights are any activity the people are willing to insist upon and defend.


Good luck wit dat.

----------


## TommyJeff

> Of course it isn't a limitation to other governments. It's a limitation to the federal government. And it doesn't merely limit it in its actions against US citizens.


I think we agree. 

Is it fair to say that you'd agree with me when I say the US constitution in no way relates to a foreigner, hoping to immigrate or set foot on US soil who has not yet passed though customs/the boarder/etc.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I think we agree. 
> 
> Is it fair to say that you'd agree with me when I say the US constitution in no way relates to a foreigner, hoping to immigrate or set foot on US soil who has not yet passed though customs/the boarder/etc.


No, that's not fair to say. The Constitution doesn't affect what other governments might do to that person. But it still limits what the US federal government can do. Unless that foreigner is part of an invading army, the Constitution prohibits the federal government from doing anything to impede that foreigner's entry into the US, beyond the collection of duties.

----------


## TommyJeff

> No, that's not fair to say. The Constitution doesn't affect what other governments might do to that person. But it still limits what the US federal government can do. Unless that foreigner is part of an invading army, the Constitution prohibits the federal government from doing anything to impede that foreigner's entry into the US, beyond the collection of duties.


Then are you contending immigration is a state's rights issue?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Then are you contending immigration is a state's rights issue?


No. Just that it's not a federal issue.

Originally, under the Constitution, some states did exercise some powers attempting to restrict immigration into them, until after a century or so the federal government started arrogating that role to itself (in clear violation of the Constitution and without passing any amendment). But under natural law, the states have no business doing that either. And that's more important than whether or not it's constitutional. An unjust law is no law at all.

----------


## PierzStyx

> That the "immigrants" have rights is not questioned... however the Constitution only binds the gov to defend the rights of its citizens, and sometimes it binds gov to protect the citizen's right at the expense of the foreigner, especially when the foreigner is 9 times out of 10 going to yell for more socialism.
> Myself, I would like to see immigration halted until we can get our own liberty back in order, without that extra competition.


The irony is this post is delicious.

First, calling for the sacrifice of rights so the government can violently attack a minority you disapprove of IS socialism. Your actual socialism is far more dangerous than any hypothetical socialist belief a foreigner might hold.

Secondly, the Constitution was not and is not about making the government defend the rights of citizens. It was about defending the rights of the people, citizens or not, FROM the government while using the government as the means to do those things that are more easily done as a group, like negotiate with foreign powers.

Third, you cannot have liberty while denying it to others. The very mechanism you build to deny liberty to others is what is used to deny you your liberty.

----------


## PierzStyx

> What?
> 
> Did you mean this?
> 
> the constitution of the United States of America protects foreigners?



The Constitution was meant to protect all people within the geographic limits that define the "United States of America" from government violation of those rights. To that end it doesn't matter if you are a citizen of the USA or not. If you live withing the boundaries of the USA then the Constitution protects your rights.  It doesn't matter if you are born here or come here from Yemen, the Constitution protects your rights equally. This is based on the understanding that all people have natural rights not based on where they come form but the fact that they are human.

This understanding also helps make sense of the Bill of Rights. Those rights in it aren't government given rights. Rather the document that all people have those rights and the federal government is forbidden to violate them.

----------


## PierzStyx

Responses in bold.




> Well, let me ask you something since you know so much. Does a person who is not an citizen of this country possess the right to come here and be left alone by our government (of, by, and for the people) to pursue his happiness? Whatever it may be. We don't always know, of course. Maybe he gets off on blowing 5 year olds up at school, talking about Allahu Akbar or something sweet like that because, you know, he feels it's his God-given moral responsibility, duty, and natural right. If so, then how? 
> 
> *A person has a natural right to live however they choose and do whatever they want as long as they accept two things: They have to also accept the consequences of their actions and they may not violate the rights of others. This is the very definition of liberty, to live how you choose.
> 
> The fact that you "don't know" says everything. See, in America you have to prove that people have committed a crime before you can punish them for it. People like you who imagine up crimes and then violently attack innocent people for your demented delusions are the greater danger to liberty and human safety than any terrorist, foreign or domestic.*
> 
> Additionally, and given that American citizens delegate their government with Just Powers in order to protect their Individual rights, how would your foreign citizen excercise his right to prohibit American government from bothering him once he is here? While I've read the moral case for unalienable rights, there also exists a responsibility or duty for every right that American citizens (again, whom delegate their government's just powers)  have. Which, when  broken down, means simply Right-Duty, Feedom-Responsibility, and ultimately this equates to Liberty-Responsibility as an inseparable whole. Share with us your wisdom.
> 
> Thank You, PierzStyx.


*Where do American citizens delegate anything? I've never been asked to consent to being governed, which Thomas Jefferson stated was essential to having a just government. The will of whatever tyrant occupies the White House has always been forced upon me or you our entire lives. Even if you vote you are not consenting. Consent means both yes or no are equal choices and equally respected outcomes. If you say no and someone forces them self upon you anyway that is rape. If you say no and the government forces itself upon you anyway then it is tyranny.

According to Jefferson there is no "moral case" for inalienable rights. There simply are inalienable rights. It isn't a matter of debate. As Locke argues, reason alone tells us there are inalienable rights. Read his "Two Treatise on Government" if you haven't. He lays it out there quite well. The only duty you have is to be a free human being. What you choose to do with that freedom is up to you.

The question of immigrants living in America being able to consent to their government is no different than how you or I consent to government. It isn't some special problem to be solved. You simply treat them the way all other people are and allow them the same methods of consent all other people do.*

----------


## PierzStyx

> Any casual passers-by who may happen across this thread, my advice is to be very careful who you listen to. Some people will have you thinking you're working in favor of the cause of Individual Liberty when you're actually working to forward anarchy/socialism/ or about a half-dozen other isms. And they won't ever tell you otherwise. They'll just turn you loose to spread their bullsht. It's one of the main reasons I don't like people who merely identify as libertarian. Read what they type for five minutes and you'll sure as sht see otherwise if you know what it is that you're actually looking at and understand what they're truly arguing against.
> 
> *It is easy to tell that you are completely ignorant of liberty. I highly suggest you read the philosophy of liberty that was the foundation of the Declaration of Independence and early American political thought, John Locke's "Two Treatise On Government." If you had you would understand that anarchy IS individual liberty and uniting into a political society, i.e. a government, by necessity means the diminution of individual liberty.
> 
> "To understand political power, we must consider the condition in which nature puts all men. It is a state of perfect freedom to do as they wish and dispose of themselves and their possessions as they think fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature. They need not ask permission or the consent of any other man. 
> The state of nature is also a state of equality. No one has more power or authority than another. Since all human beings have the same advantages and the use of the same skills, they should be equal to each other. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it. Reason is the law. It teaches that all men are equal and independent, and that no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions. All men are made by one all-powerful and wise Maker. They are all servants of one Master who sent them into the world to do His business. He has put men naturally into a state of independence, and they remain in it until they choose to become members of a political society.
> 
> 
> If a man in the state of nature is free, if he is absolute lord of his own person and possessions, why will he give up his freedom? Why will he put himself under the control of any person or institution? The obvious answer is that the rights in the state of nature are constantly exposed to the attacks of others. Since every man is equal and since most men do not concern themselves with equity and justice, the enjoyment of rights in the state of nature is unsafe and insecure. Hence each man joins in society with others to preserve life, liberty, and property.
> ...


*Sure, Lincoln. Except the third quote above from Locke already destroys this argument. But honestly, your argument is so bad the Constitution itself destroys it. Quoting from the Preamble of the US Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Constitution literally says it is of the people. Further your last bit in which you try to argue that the Constitution doesn't cover anybody but however you define "people" is just stupid. There was no nation known as the United States of America before the Constitution. There was a confederacy of thirteen independent nation-states that refereed to itself as the united States of America. Therefore no one making the Constitution could actually be talking as citizens of the USA because it did not exist. Your argument is truly completely unhinged form historical reality.*

----------


## Superfluous Man

> the Constitution only binds the gov to defend the rights of its citizens, and sometimes it binds gov to protect the citizen's right at the expense of the foreigner, especially when the foreigner is 9 times out of 10 going to yell for more socialism.


Could you please cite the specific part of the Constitution you are talking about here?

----------


## fedupinmo

> The irony is this post is delicious.
> 
> First, calling for the sacrifice of rights so the government can violently attack a minority you disapprove of IS socialism. Your actual socialism is far more dangerous than any hypothetical socialist belief a foreigner might hold.
> 
> Secondly, the Constitution was not and is not about making the government defend the rights of citizens. It was about defending the rights of the people, citizens or not, FROM the government while using the government as the means to do those things that are more easily done as a group, like negotiate with foreign powers.
> 
> Third, you cannot have liberty while denying it to others. The very mechanism you build to deny liberty to others is what is used to deny you your liberty.


We, the people of the... whole $#@!ing world? No, wait... that's not it.
And what minority are you speaking of? 320,000,000 versus what, 5.7 billion or so?
We can wage war on others, depriving them of life; and they have a right to life if we do.
We can also tell who we wish to stay out, if they will damage our liberty or way of life.
Human respect demands certain things, but vital necessity sometimes overrules.
There is no need to rush to globalism, and no need to unAmerica this place to respect other cultures over our own. The Constitution nowhere demands we hand everything over to foreigners either.
All we have gained by bringing in just anyone is less liberty and less security and yes, more socialism so we can give them a leg up where once an immigrant had to "melt" to survive. How would Benny feel about sacrificing both to gain neither, I wonder?

----------


## fedupinmo

"...the Constitution only binds the gov to defend the rights of its  citizens, and sometimes it binds gov to protect the citizen's right at  the expense of the foreigner, especially when the foreigner is 9 times  out of 10 going to yell for more socialism."




> Could you please cite the specific part of the Constitution you are talking about here?


Have you read the thing?
A foreigner can't be a Senator, Representative, President, Vice President... There is Declaration of War, punishment of piracy and offenses against the law of nations, all deprivation of some right or another in favor of the rights of the citizens.
Being a nation is juggling the rights of one's own with the rights of everybody else, and in your own favor.

----------


## Ender

> *Sure, Lincoln. Except the third quote above from Locke already destroys this argument. But honestly, your argument is so bad the Constitution itself destroys it. Quoting from the Preamble of the US Constitution:
> 
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> 
> The Constitution literally says it is of the people. Further your last bit in which you try to argue that the Constitution doesn't cover anybody but however you define "people" is just stupid. There was no nation known as the United States of America before the Constitution. There was a confederacy of thirteen independent nation-states that refereed to itself as the united States of America. Therefore no one making the Constitution could actually be talking as citizens of the USA because it did not exist. Your argument is truly completely unhinged form historical reality.*


Actually it was the *united* States of America originally, which recognized each state's individuality and power, working together in common law. It became the *United* States of America after Lincoln, a corporate entity designed to be The Boss.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Have you read the thing?
> A foreigner can't be a Senator, Representative, President, Vice President... There is Declaration of War, punishment of piracy and offenses against the law of nations, all deprivation of some right or another in favor of the rights of the citizens.



Running for those offices isn't a natural right though. And I don't see how the other things you mentioned have anything to do with the topic. In mentioning them, I don't believe the Constitution refers to citizenship at all. Does it?

Is that all you were talking about?




> Being a nation is juggling the rights of one's own with the rights of everybody else, and in your own favor.


What a strange definition of nationhood. Where did you get it?

----------


## Natural Citizen

My friend, you're way too far out of your league to be making the statements you just made. I think you're just too prideful in your ignorance to know that you are. And, observably, you're equally as aggressive in misinterpreting our documents and history in order to gather support for your cause of anarchy. 

Here - Learn, dummy. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6197351

I should neg your silly ass for being purposefully dishonest about history and the tenor of our founding documents. But I think you truly have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think you're very well read. And if you are, then you're more likely reading the wrong books. Probably th ones which make you feel good about your own anarchist worldview. Which makes you dangerous to those who read your pablum and don't know any better about what you're actually promoting from behind the shroud of Individual Liberty.




> *Sure, Lincoln. Except the third quote above from Locke already destroys this argument. But honestly, your argument is so bad the Constitution itself destroys it. Quoting from the Preamble of the US Constitution:
> 
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> 
> The Constitution literally says it is of the people. Further your last bit in which you try to argue that the Constitution doesn't cover anybody but however you define "people" is just stupid. There was no nation known as the United States of America before the Constitution. There was a confederacy of thirteen independent nation-states that refereed to itself as the united States of America. Therefore no one making the Constitution could actually be talking as citizens of the USA because it did not exist. Your argument is truly completely unhinged form historical reality.*



End of the day, Americans are equal, not only by their creator, but in sight of the law.  But that's you're problem isn't it? The latter. Want to be a cowboy, do ya? 

At least the Anti-Federalists put up a logical argument. Bu you're not one of them. You're something else entirely.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> The Constitution was meant to protect all people within the geographic limits that define the "United States of America" from government violation of those rights. To that end it doesn't matter if you are a citizen of the USA or not. If you live withing the boundaries of the USA then the Constitution protects your rights.  It doesn't matter if you are born here or come here from Yemen, the Constitution protects your rights equally. This is based on the understanding that all people have natural rights not based on where they come form but the fact that they are human.
> 
> This understanding also helps make sense of the Bill of Rights. Those rights in it aren't government given rights. Rather the document that all people have those rights and the federal government is forbidden to violate them.


Right you are.  You explain it well and it would be great if those who want to increase the power of goonerment would see the simple fact that goonerment violates basic rights!! 

It's clear that the "constitution" was an attempt to restrict the goons from infringing on rights of "THE PEOPLE", but it has proven to be inneffective.  "The People" mean (as the founders explained in many supporting documents) to be those created by God...  Maybe some people here believe that foreigners were NOT created by God??

----------


## fedupinmo

> Running for those offices isn't a natural right though. And I don't see how the other things you mentioned have anything to do with the topic. In mentioning them, I don't believe the Constitution refers to citizenship at all. Does it?


Seriously... you should just read it top to bottom . Interesting stuff, really.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Seriously... you should just read it top to bottom . Interesting stuff, really.


Constitution only refers to Naturalization- the process by which a person not born in the country can become a citizen.   The only other references to immigration or citizenship is the requirement that certain elected officials be citizens by birth.  It says nothing about immigration or rights or lack of rights of immigrants.

----------


## otherone

> Constitution only refers to Naturalization- the process by which a person not born in the country can become a citizen.   The only other references to immigration or citizenship is the requirement that certain elected officials be citizens by birth.  It says nothing about immigration or rights or lack of rights of immigrants.


The problem of course, of only citizens having rights, is _who_ decides who are citizens.
HINT:  It ain't God.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Seriously... you should just read it top to bottom . Interesting stuff, really.


I have. That's why I thought your remarks were so strange.

----------


## TommyJeff

> The Constitution was meant to protect all people within the geographic limits that define the "United States of America" from government violation of those rights. To that end it doesn't matter if you are a citizen of the USA or not. If you live withing the boundaries of the USA then the Constitution protects your rights.  It doesn't matter if you are born here or come here from Yemen, the Constitution protects your rights equally. This is based on the understanding that all people have natural rights not based on where they come form but the fact that they are human.
> 
> This understanding also helps make sense of the Bill of Rights. Those rights in it aren't government given rights. Rather the document that all people have those rights and the federal government is forbidden to violate them.



Ok we agree.  The constitution doesn't relate to foreigners who didn't yet cross the boarder/customs, into the USA.

----------


## TommyJeff

> No. Just that it's not a federal issue.
> 
> Originally, under the Constitution, some states did exercise some powers attempting to restrict immigration into them, until after a century or so the federal government started arrogating that role to itself (in clear violation of the Constitution and without passing any amendment). But under natural law, the states have no business doing that either. And that's more important than whether or not it's constitutional. An unjust law is no law at all.



I habe two questions and hope you'll answer both please. 
1. if it's not a federal issue, who's issue is it?  

2. why is a boarder or boundary contrary to natural law?  a group of people can gather, own propery, protect that property, and deny access to others while not violating their natural rights.  Do you not agree?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Ok we agree.  The constitution doesn't relate to foreigners who didn't yet cross the boarder/customs, into the USA.


"Does not relate" in what way?

It doesn't relate to citizens either in any direct way. It relates directly to the federal government, by enumerating its powers. It ostensibly limits the federal government by prohibiting it from exercising powers outside those enumerated.

This prohibition doesn't have a loophole that permits the federal government to exercise other powers, but only if the people whose rights it violates thereby are foreigners.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I habe two questions and hope you'll answer both please. 
> 1. if it's not a federal issue, who's issue is it?


According to the 10th Amendment, either the states or the people.




> 2. why is a boarder or boundary contrary to natural law?


I never said it was.

----------


## TommyJeff

> It says nothing about immigration or rights or lack of rights of immigrants.


Zippy, I enjoy your point of view.  So I hope you don't mind my interjection.  
Is it possible this term immigration is more of a question of semantics?  The constitution says nothing about citizens bearing _guns_ either. 
Immigration isn't a vacation. It's the perminant living arrangement in a new location.  That sounds an awful lot like a person on a path to citizenship.   But, if you don't agree, where does the immigration authority fall, to the states?

----------


## TommyJeff

> "Does not relate" in what way?
> 
> It doesn't relate to citizens either in any direct way.



It sure does.  It relates to citizens by enumerating the power of uniform naturalization to the federal government.

----------


## TommyJeff

> According to the 10th Amendment, either the states or the people.
> Ok, I asked that before. you said you weren't contending immigration is a state issue.  So are you saying the people determine it?
> 
>  never said it was.


I apologize. Didn't intend to put words in your mouth.  
 I read your prior post to say,  the restriction of immigration, by a state, violates natural law. Did I misunderstand you?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Zippy, I enjoy your point of view.  So I hope you don't mind my interjection.  
> Is it possible this term immigration is more of a question of semantics?  The constitution says nothing about citizens bearing _guns_ either. 
> Immigration isn't a vacation. It's the perminant living arrangement in a new location.  That sounds an awful lot like a person on a path to citizenship.   But, if you don't agree, where does the immigration authority fall, to the states?


As mentioned, the only thing the Constitution says even remotely related to immigration is that Congress has the power to set the rules for Naturlization.  




> *To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization*, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;


Naturalization being the process of somebody not being a citizen by birth attaining citizenship.   If you were not a citizen by birth, you must have entered the country from someplace else (unless you were a slave or a diplomat or an American Indian).  Therefore, there must be a way to be allowed to enter the country in the first place.  

It also does grant Congress:




> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, *and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water*;


But that seems to apply based on context to military captures- not immigrants found within the borders or waters.  

And there is also:



> To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and *Offenses against the Law of Nations*;


But that seems to relate to criminals.  Are immigrants criminals?  Probably not- many of the founders were immigrants or descended from them. 

Is this relevant? 



> To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States*; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Is immigration important to the General Welfare of the country (Positively or negatively)? 


If any of these apply, then Congress has the power:



> *To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.*


The Constitution was not set out to cover everything. It could not.  It was basically intended to set up the structure of government and allocate the powers of running the country.  President was the head of the military and the Executive Branch- charged with carrying out the laws created. Congress was charged with writing the laws- subject to the approval of the President (who can veto them).  The Judiciary was to rule on violations of the laws and violations of powers.  

I would say yes, the Congress has the power to determine what is and is not allowed in immigration.  




> Immigration isn't a vacation. It's the perminant living arrangement in a new location.


Immigration can also be a temporary thing.  Moving to a country for a temporary job assignment.  Going there for an education or for vacation (though vacationers are generally not considered immigrants since their stay is too short. How long do you have to stay before you become one? Arbitrary decision).  It CAN lead to citizenship if you make it permanent.

As for guns, that is under dispute too.  The Second Amendment says:



> *A well regulated militia*, being necessary to the security of a free state, the *right of the people to keep and bear arms*, shall not be infringed.


Some take that to mean military arms to be used by domestic armies.  Hunting and fishing were ways of survival then though so guns were not just for military use.

----------


## TommyJeff

> As mentioned, the only thing the Constitution says even remotely related to immigration is that Congress has the power to set the rules for Naturlization.  
> 
> 
> 
> Naturalization being the process of somebody not being a citizen by birth attaining citizenship.   If you were not a citizen by birth, you must have entered the country from someplace else (unless you were a slave or a diplomat or an American Indian).  *Therefore, there must be a way to be allowed to enter the country in the first place.*



I agree, there must be a way for people to enter the country, from someplace else.  But are you saying the uniform rules for naturalization cannot include the acceptable way in which people from some other place cross the boarder (or enter the country)?


and i didn't want to get off topic with the second amendment comment, but the term _arms_ is accepted as _guns_ (at least in part), without having to say the term guns.  If you're suggesting arms doesn't infer or include guns, we have a whole new debate on our hands.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> It sure does.  It relates to citizens by enumerating the power of uniform naturalization to the federal government.


You keep changing the subject.

That wasn't what your quote was about that I was responding to. By this same respect, the Constitution also relates to foreigners, since it enumerates the power of naturalization to the federal government to decide how they can become citizens.

But that wasn't what we were debating.

It does show, though, how your choice of the word "relates" was unhelpful.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I read your prior post to say,  the restriction of immigration, by a state, violates natural law. Did I misunderstand you?


No, you didn't misunderstand me. But that's not how you characterized my position in post #63.

Restricting immigration by a state does violate natural law.

Just as if would violate natural law if I personally as an individual tried to restrict immigration.

----------


## TommyJeff

> You keep changing the subject.
> 
> That wasn't what your quote was about that I was responding to. By this same respect, the Constitution also relates to foreigners, since it enumerates the power of naturalization to the federal government to decide how they can become citizens.
> 
> But that wasn't what we were debating.
> 
> It does show, though, how your choice of the word "relates" was unhelpful. I concede this last point


im not trying to change the subject.  I may have misspoken, so I will try to clear things up. The federal government sets the uniform way for a foreigner on foreign soil to become a US citizen, which may include the process by which a person on foreign soil enters into this country.  But prior to that person stepping foot on US soil, they are subject to the rules, regulations and government powers set forth by the nation where they reside.   

To get this back on point.  Is it your contention that the federal government cannot be involved in immigration?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> To get this back on point.  Is it your contention that the federal government cannot be involved in immigration?


The federal government has no right to restrict immigration.

Neither does anyone else.

----------


## TommyJeff

> No, you didn't misunderstand me. But that's not how you characterized my position in post #63.
> 
> Restricting immigration by a state does violate natural law.
> 
> Just as if would violate natural law if I personally as an individual tried to restrict immigration.


If a group of people decide to gather together,  agree on some rules in a leagally binding way(accepted by the group), and one such rule restricts access to those not in this group, that does not violate natural law --- do we ageee?

but if someone labels this land as Virginia and the group of people as Virginians, then it does violate natural law?

 Im willing to be educated.  Would you explain which natural law is violated differently above please?  Thank you for all your posts and replies.

----------


## TommyJeff

> The federal government has no right to restrict immigration.
> 
> Neither does anyone else.


Doesnt this assume no one has the right to own land? Is that what you're saying?  everyone can roam anywhere without restriction and no one can restrict access to any areas?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> If a group of people decide to gather together,  agree on some rules in a leagally binding way(accepted by the group), and one such rule restricts access to those not in this group, that does not violate natural law --- do we ageee?


Yes. They can do that for the property they all own. But they can't impose that restriction on any other property.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Doesnt this assume no one has the right to own land? Is that what you're saying?  everyone can roam anywhere without restriction and no one can restrict access to any areas?


No, it doesn't assume that. In fact, your position, that the federal government has a right to restrict immigration is the position that assumes that no one has a right to own land.

You effectively treat all land in the USA as if it is the property of the federal government, and they get to decide who can and can't be on that land, rather than letting us, as owners of our own properties, make our own decisions about who can and can't be on our own land.

----------


## TommyJeff

> No, it doesn't assume that. In fact, your position, that the federal government has a right to restrict immigration is the position that assumes that no one has a right to own land.
> 
> You effectively treat all land in the USA as if it is the property of the federal government, and they get to decide who can and can't be on that land, rather than letting us, as owners of our own properties, make our own decisions about who can and can't be on our own land.


Im not including the current federal overreach and claim of all land for itself. 

But can't all the people collectively own the land inside a region?  And can all those people agree that the collectively owned land will be monitored by a small group?  


Maybe we aren't agreeing on terms.  How are you defining immigration?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Im not including the current federal overreach and claim of all land for itself.


If you support federal immigration laws, then you are including that, whether intentionally or not.




> But can't all the people collectively own the land inside a region?  And can all those people agree that the collectively owned land will be monitored by a small group?


Yes. Like a neighborhood association.

----------


## otherone

> But can't all the people collectively own the land inside a region?  And can all those people agree that the collectively owned land will be monitored by a small group?

----------


## TommyJeff

> 



Wow.  Good image. Clearly I misspoke. 
i should have also mentioned privately owned property in addition to the collectively owned. But I can see how my wording sounds bad.

----------


## TommyJeff

> Yes. Like a neighborhood association.


and if that group & association were the size of Virginia, would your answer change?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> and if that group & association were the size of Virginia, would your answer change?


No, my answer wouldn't change.

But it would still continue to be the case that the group would only have control over the property that is owned by its members who are in agreement with the policy.

They would have no right to impose their rules about whom they want to invite onto their property on any of the rest of us who don't agree. We would still have the right to invite those people onto our property.

----------


## pcosmar

> Doesnt this assume no one has the right to own land? Is that what you're saying?  everyone can roam anywhere without restriction and no one can restrict access to any areas?


The Federal Government has NO rights.
State governments have no rights.

Individuals have rights. Protected under our constitution,, but preexisting.. 
Human Rights.

States and Corporations have no rights.

----------


## MallsRGood

> Serious question.... is illegal immigration trespassing


Only the owner of a parcel of land has the right to exclude people from that land.

 No one owns the entire country, therefore no one has the right to exclude people from the entire country. 

The country consists of many parcels of land owned by many different people, each of whom has the right to exclude people from his own land. Whether an immigrant (or anyone else) is trespassing when he enters a piece of land depends purely on whether the owner of that land has granted him permission, nor on whether any else - incl. the government - grants him permission.

But what about lands owned by the state and held open to the general public (e.g. roads), which any immigrant must invariably use? 

Tabling the question of whether such public property should even exist, think about it practically. If the state allows Joe Merica to drive on the roads, for the price of purchasing of a driver's license, keeping his car registered, and whatever other conditions there might be, why not allow Jose Beaner to do the same? What difference does it makes where Jose was born? The restrictionist argument that Jose hasn't been paying the taxes that built the road doesn't make any sense, since it also applies to a great many Americans - 16 year olds haven't been paying any taxes when they start driving, and even people who've been paying taxes for decades are mostly net tax consumers when accounting for all the benefits they receive (i.e. they aren't really paying for the roads either). And if you're not going to deny them access to roads there's no reason to deny access to Jose. 




> or should the government not have anything to do with the supply and price curves of labor?


Certainly not. Apart from being immoral in itself, it necessarily reduces living standards. 




> It's invasion. Article IV, Section 4.


That's just silly. 

The businessman checking into the Diamond Lounge at JFK isn't invading New York. 

The German army wasn't immigrating to France in 1940.

invasion =/= movement

----------


## John F Kennedy III

We have rights because we exist. There is zero need for a creator to give us rights.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

#1) The constitution protects your rights, it does not grant them to you. Rights cannot be granted, only privileges are granted.

#2) The constitution protects the rights of its citizens. If you are not a citizen, then your rights are not protected, and all you have are privileges.

All cleared up now?


This should be required viewing for every high school student: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRcowVknJss

----------


## fedupinmo

> No. Just that it's not a federal issue.
> 
> Originally, under the Constitution, some states did exercise some powers attempting to restrict immigration into them, until after a century or so the federal government started arrogating that role to itself (in clear violation of the Constitution and without passing any amendment). But under natural law, the states have no business doing that either. And that's more important than whether or not it's constitutional. An unjust law is no law at all.


Article 1, Section 9 seems to infer that they had that power, since they had to abrogate that power in text temporarily.




> The federal government has no right to restrict immigration.
> 
> Neither does anyone else.


The federal government has no rights at all, it has powers.




> "Does not relate" in what way?
> 
> It doesn't relate to citizens either in any direct way. It relates  directly to the federal government, by enumerating its powers. It  ostensibly limits the federal government by prohibiting it from  exercising powers outside those enumerated.
> 
> This prohibition doesn't have a loophole that permits the federal  government to exercise other powers, but only if the people whose rights  it violates thereby are foreigners.


That depends on the means of immigration... the government may  permit some to immigrate here, with governmental permission, known as  legal immigration.
Illegal immigration, or doing so without the  permission of the fedgoob, is invasion and the United States is  compelled to prevent it for the States by Article IV, Section 4.

----------


## wizardwatson

> *This is what the Lord Almighty said: Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.* Zech 7:9-10


Justice is the goal.  And mercy.  

All this talk of "rights" is really just a watering down of the concept of justice.  Turning the law into a commodity passed out by government to this and that "respected persons" even when they aren't actually persons.  It's a better vocabulary for the type of divisive group think that plagues us these days than the old concepts of justice and law which carry a more universal connotation.

Rothbard tried to define rights through the secular concept of "self-ownership".  While the negative right for others to aggress you might seem obvious, he fails, in my opinion, to define the "positive right" of retributive justice.

So what needs to be decided is not whether so-and-so has the "right" to do this or that, but are the people affected by an act being treated unjustly.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> The problem of course, of only citizens having rights, is _who_ decides who are citizens.
> HINT:  It ain't God.


That's why it's NOT only citizens (whatever that is) who have rights... It's ALL PEOPLE!

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> We have rights because we exist. There is zero need for a creator to give us rights.


This is why I use "Creator" for the existence of rights.  If you believe that "nature" is your creator then you can claim "nature" as the source of your rights.  I believe God is my Creator and He is the source of my rights.  "Creator" is a neutral term that all people (should) be able to accept and agree on...

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> I agree, there must be a way for people to enter the country, from someplace else.  But are you saying the uniform rules for naturalization cannot include the acceptable way in which people from some other place cross the boarder (or enter the country)?
> 
> 
> and i didn't want to get off topic with the second amendment comment, but the term _arms_ is accepted as _guns_ (at least in part), without having to say the term guns.  If you're suggesting arms doesn't infer or include guns, we have a whole new debate on our hands.


"A way to enter"??  You enter by walking in.  This is the way it was at the founding and it's the way it should be today (and is for many people).  If you read Yick Wo you will see that the "immigrant" filing the appeal was still a subject of the Emperor of China even though he had lived in San Fran for something like 10 years.  Don't think he ever intended to become a "citizen" and certainly his rights were not subject to being one... 

(P.S. I doubt that he asked for "permission" to move to San Fran...)

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> This is why I use "Creator" for the existence of rights.  If you believe that "nature" is your creator then you can claim "nature" as the source of your rights.  I believe God is my Creator and He is the source of my rights.  "Creator" is a neutral term that all people (should) be able to accept and agree on...


That makes sense. My bad.

----------


## Krugminator2

Rights are  man made construct to further human life. 

You could say rights come from a "creator" in the sense that rights should be congruent with human nature. Property rights create incentives to maximize overall well being and happiness. If property rights didn't further humanity, it wouldn't make sense to have them as rights.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Article 1, Section 9 seems to infer that they had that power, since they had to abrogate that power in text temporarily.


You mean "imply."

Nevertheless. No. Such a power is not among those enumerated for the federal government.

ETA: Here is a great article discussing the clause to which you refer:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-immigration/




> The federal government has no rights at all, it has powers.


Same thing. And if it is true that the federal government does not have the right to exercise any given power, then that means that it is wrong for it to exercise that power.

You are correct, however, that it has no rights, since, no matter what power it ever exercises, it's always wrong.




> That depends on the means of immigration... the government may  permit some to immigrate here, with governmental permission, known as  legal immigration.
> Illegal immigration, or doing so without the  permission of the fedgoob, is invasion and the United States is  compelled to prevent it for the States by Article IV, Section 4.


No. The federal government has no right to require its permission for anyone to immigrate here. As far as the federal government is concerned, were it to act within the bounds of its constitutional powers, all immigration is legal.

"Invasion" does not refer to merely crossing a border without certain paperwork that didn't even exist when the Constitution was ratified.

----------


## fedupinmo

No, rights are inherent to people, powers are granted. And Wapo as an authority? I chuckle knowingly.
One illegal crossing the border may just be a "visit", but crossing en masse is INVASION. The Constitution very plainly gives the fedgoob the power to curb that, and has from the start.

----------


## osan

> Total confusion about what "rights" are and where they come from...
> 
> "I am not going to dwell on the legality of Trumps statement because it  is already established. Apart from the fact that the American  Constitution does not give any rights to foreigners, according to the  federal Immigration and Nationality Act, Whenever the president finds  that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United  States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he  may by proclamation, and for such period as he deems necessary, suspend  the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens."
> 
> http://archive.is/kn8RB
> 
> This is how people lose sight of the issues and get on the wrong track...
> RIGHTS come from the Creator!!  They do not come from the "Constitution" and certainly not from the goonerment!!  I guess you can say that the opinion above is correct in that the constitution does not give rights to "foreigners" since it does not give rights to ANYONE.  
> 
> ...


The Constitution also does not protect the rights of anyone not in the territories of the United States, nor should it.  The implication otherwise is that we Americans are obliged to save the world.  In fact, it would perforce imply that all humanity is American.  It would also imply a world government.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> The Constitution also does not protect the rights of anyone not in the territories of the United States, nor should it.  The implication otherwise is that we Americans are obliged to save the world.  In fact, it would perforce imply that all humanity is American.  It would also imply a world government.


The constitution does not protect anyone's rights, unfortunately...  I wish it did.  Your rights are yours to protect and you can, if you wish, help to protect the rights of others.  "People" have to protect rights, a paper document signed over 200 years ago cannot do anything as it's an inanimate object.  While the words written on this document are genius, those words are disregarded by TPTB...

----------


## osan

> The constitution does not protect anyone's rights, unfortunately...  I wish it did.  Your rights are yours to protect and you can, if you wish, help to protect the rights of others.  "People" have to protect rights, a paper document signed over 200 years ago cannot do anything as it's an inanimate object.  While the words written on this document are genius, those words are disregarded by TPTB...


A scrap of paper can do nothing.  We are the sole agents.

----------


## Cleaner44

> Agree-
> 
> This is why many of the states were hesitant about the Constitution and why the BoR was added in the first place. Freedom does NOT come from government.


Does anyone remember what or why the bill of rights is different than other amendments and can't be repealed? I am looking for the legal stipulation.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Does anyone remember what or why the bill of rights is different than other amendments and can't be repealed? I am looking for the legal stipulation.


With one exception anything in the Constitution can be repealed, including the Bill of Rights.  The only exception is that no State can be deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent (see Article V).  In addition, there two other exceptions that have expired: no amendment made before 1808 could have affected the provisions in I.9.1 and I.9.4 that prohibited Congress from banning the slave trade before 1808 and that mandated that direct taxes be apportioned, respectively.

----------


## Cleaner44

> With one exception anything in the Constitution can be repealed, including the Bill of Rights.  The only exception is that no State can be deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent (see Article V).  In addition, there two other exceptions that have expired: no amendment made before 1808 could have affected the provisions in I.9.1 and I.9.4 that prohibited Congress from banning the slave trade before 1808 and that mandated that direct taxes be apportioned, respectively.


Thank you for sharing!

----------


## TommyJeff

> ...anything in the Constitution can be repealed...


Absolutely correct.  But that doesn't remove anyone's natural rights.  Do we agree?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Absolutely correct.  But that doesn't remove anyone's natural rights.  Do we agree?


Of course.

----------


## TommyJeff

> Of course.

----------

