Dave Brat Votes For NDAA 2016

[Peace&Freedom]

Why does the government have the right to regulate who can cross the border? How is this pro-liberty in any way? What's the Biblical basis for this?

Legitimate government has the power, delegated to it by the people, to protect their rights to life, liberty and property, but no legitimate powers beyond that minimum. So government has a proper defensive role with regards to its borders, as part of its delegated power to defend life, liberty and property. All people have rights, but a particular government's obligation to honor or protect those rights can be reasonably restricted to those persons or families who have voluntarily made themselves participants, or citizens, under that government though acts of allegiance, such as completing a naturalization or resident process. Biblically, this understanding is consistent with the structure of ancient Israel, where strangers were welcomed or tolerated, but not considered citizens under the covenant of Mosaic law.

A foreigner who is visiting the country is not a citizen, nor is a foreign worker with an expired visa a citizen, nor is an invading soldier a citizen, simply because he is physically 'here.' None have undertaken to switch allegiance to the country, so as to oblige the government to provide automatic access to its protections and resources. So there are victims in illegal immigration, namely the native allegiant citizens, who are expected to involuntarily support (through their delegated government) a population who has not entered into voluntary allegiance to that government. Their non-performance of the legal process makes them aliens and aggressors until they rectify the situation, every bit as much as people taking up residence on other people's property without entering into a lease agreement are not legal tenants, but trespassers.

 

[jeffro97]

Wow, I missed a lot on this thread. I leave for three days and I see all this. I posted my concerns, and got a lot more activity than what I thought would come back.

I will say I like Peace&Freedom's above post. Other than that, I honestly don't know what happened here, and how.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Legitimate government has the power, delegated to it by the people, to protect their rights to life, liberty and property, but no legitimate powers beyond that minimum. So government has a proper defensive role with regards to its borders, as part of its delegated power to defend life, liberty and property. All people have rights, but a particular government's obligation to honor or protect those rights can be reasonably restricted to those persons or families who have voluntarily made themselves participants, or citizens, under that government though acts of allegiance, such as completing a naturalization or resident process. Biblically, this understanding is consistent with the structure of ancient Israel, where strangers were welcomed or tolerated, but not considered citizens under the covenant of Mosaic law.

A foreigner who is visiting the country is not a citizen, nor is a foreign worker with an expired visa a citizen, nor is an invading soldier a citizen, simply because he is physically 'here.' None have undertaken to switch allegiance to the country, so as to oblige the government to provide automatic access to its protections and resources. So there are victims in illegal immigration, namely the native allegiant citizens, who are expected to involuntarily support (through their delegated government) a population who has not entered into voluntary allegiance to that government. Their non-performance of the legal process makes them aliens and aggressors until they rectify the situation, every bit as much as people taking up residence on other people's property without entering into a lease agreement are not legal tenants, but trespassers.

I'm not talking about citizenship, only residency.

With that said, if I want to hire someone who lives in a foreign country, and he wants to work for me, there are no "victims" in that scenario. There is no wickedness going on that would fall under Romans 13. Such laws are senseless and not moral.

We aren't talking about invading soldiers here, obviously.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I'm not talking about citizenship, only residency.

With that said, if I want to hire someone who lives in a foreign country, and he wants to work for me, there are no "victims" in that scenario. There is no wickedness going on that would fall under Romans 13. Such laws are senseless and not moral.

We aren't talking about invading soldiers here, obviously.

Lack of permission creates victims, and in this case involves more than two parties. There's a difference between knocking on the door and asking for a cup of sugar, versus coming in uninvited and just taking it. Residency and work visa situations are different from full citizenship, yes, but even for those circumstances there is an existing procedure for obtaining that status, before enjoying the country's resources. You don't have residency unless you have the consent, which happens after completing the process. So the lawful framework is moral, as it protects the consent of the people.

It is the personal responsibility of those seeking those arrangements to complete that process to have that status, not the obligation of others to treat them as such regardless of whether or not they have done so. If you want to get across the street, walk across it. Don't expect others to carry you across the road because you won't walk, yet expect everyone to consider you a walker nonetheless.