Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."

[thoughtomator]

The question is, do we as Americans have the right to self-determination? If so, then we also have the right to have a say in whether new people are allowed to come into the country.

Controlling immigration is a prerequisite for sovereignty, which in turn is a prerequisite for the protection of rights, which in turn is why we instituted a government in the first place as per the Declaration of Independence. It is not quite so simple in declaring immigration to be a "right", because then you undermine the basis for protection of rights in the first place.

 

[Darguth]

Judge is absolutely correct on this. People confuse border security and immigration control. We as a sovereign nation have the right and authority to secure our border. This would include repelling invasion, preventing espionage, or other law enforcement necessary to enforce just laws (i.e. prevent a bank fraudster from fleeing to or from our nation). However, we should not (and cannot justify morally) preventing immigration without just cause. Doing so would violate the individual rights of immigrants as well as upset the free flow of labor necessary for a successful free market (in the exactly same way a free flow of capital is necessary). "We don't want them here" or "we need to save American jobs" is not just cause under any concept of individual sovereignty and self-ownership.

 

[UMULAS]

The question is, do we as Americans have the right to self-determination? If so, then we also have the right to have a say in whether new people are allowed to come into the country.

Controlling immigration is a prerequisite for sovereignty, which in turn is a prerequisite for the protection of rights, which in turn is why we instituted a government in the first place as per the Declaration of Independence. It is not quite so simple in declaring immigration to be a "right", because then you undermine the basis for protection of rights in the first place.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.


Although Artical 1, Section 8 of Constitution allows regulation of immigration, immigrants here have the right to stay here since you don't have to be a citizen to stay or live here.

 

[thoughtomator]

Although Artical 1, Section 8 of Constitution allows regulation of immigration, immigrants here have the right to stay here since you don't have to be a citizen to stay or live here.

I'm fairly certain that that interpretation would not have been agreed on by the authors of the Constitution. If it allows regulation of immigration then it must necessarily have a provision to disallow an immigrant from coming here and living here, otherwise there's little point to the exercise.

 

[XTreat]

How can anyone begrudge an individual for trying to make a better life for themselves and their family? If I were in Mexico, living in poverty and could cross an imaginary line and get a job working hard scrubbing toilets and be able to put my kids into school in order to better their lives, I would do it as well.

So long as they dont come in and try to take my property or infringe on my rights, all the best to them on improving their lives.

Exactly.

 

[CaptUSA]

The question is, do we as Americans have the right to self-determination? If so, then we also have the right to have a say in whether new people are allowed to come into the country.

Controlling immigration is a prerequisite for sovereignty, which in turn is a prerequisite for the protection of rights, which in turn is why we instituted a government in the first place as per the Declaration of Independence. It is not quite so simple in declaring immigration to be a "right", because then you undermine the basis for protection of rights in the first place.

Strange you should bring Jefferson into this...

"I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation. If the laws have provided no particular mode by which the right of expatriation may be exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration."

"Our ancestors... possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as, to them, shall seem most likely to promote public happiness."

"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular."

All Thomas Jefferson.

His only concern was too rapid a growth of immigrants bringing with them a lust for tyranny. I share that concern. Which is why if we ended the entitlement system we have, immigration wouldn't need to be illegal and wouldn't be a problem.

 

[XTreat]

Eliminate the schools and prisons: problem solved.
Deregulate the hospitals: problem solved.
Support a national party that doesn't treat them like subhuman vermin: problem solved.

Let's see how this logic works....
Problem A is a completely independent problem that causes far-reaching societal issues, including brainwashing children and locking up the ones whose conditioning doesn't take.
Problem B is, however, making problem A more expensive.
Therefore if we eliminate problem B, we'll all live happily ever after.

Does that sum it up?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to fisharmor again.

 

[thoughtomator]

Strange you should bring Jefferson into this...


All Thomas Jefferson.

His only concern was too rapid a growth of immigrants bringing with them a lust for tyranny. I share that concern. Which is why if we ended the entitlement system we have, immigration wouldn't need to be illegal and wouldn't be a problem.

Note he specified emigration as a right - but not immigration. You have the right to leave a place, but the place you want to go, if an established society exists there, is not required to accept you.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm pretty sure the Judge would feel the same way about this, too.

Goody, then get out your checkbook and pay for the illegal aliens. In fact today, why don't you go to your nearest emergency room and empty your bank account to pay for the illegal aliens who pop up there to get free medical care. And then, go to your nearest public school and shell out the rest of your money to fund the illegal aliens education.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Even Ron Paul is NOT for open borders. Most assuredly not while we have the welfare system we have.

If you guys want to pay for the illegal aliens, go for it. But, get your hand out of my pocket.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The Founding Fathers were immigration skeptics by Thomas Woods

Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration. If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad. But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.

In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

read the rest...

 

[CaptUSA]

Note he specified emigration as a right - but not immigration. You have the right to leave a place, but the place you want to go, if an established society exists there, is not required to accept you.

How far down this hole do you want to go before you realize you don't understand Jefferson's position on this matter???

"Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that for admission to certain offices of important trust a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?"

"It [has] been the wise policy of these states to extend the protection of their laws to all those who should settle among them of whatever nation or religion they might be and to admit them to a participation of the benefits of civil and religious freedom, and... the benevolence of this practice as well as its salutary effects [has] rendered it worthy of being continued in future times."

"America is now, I think, the only country of tranquility and should be the asylum of all those who wish to avoid the scenes which have crushed our friends in [other lands]."

"[We wish] but to consecrate a sanctuary for those whom the misrule of Europe may compel to seek happiness in other climes. This refuge, once known, will produce reaction on the happiness even of those who remain there by warning their task-masters that when the evils of Egyptian oppression become heavier than those of the abandonment of country, another Canaan is open where their subjects will be received as brothers and secured against like oppressions by a participation in the right of self-government."

Again, all Jefferson.

Again, Jefferson cautioned about too rapid a growth, but it was never a question in his mind that this was a natural right and that this nation would be the sole nation on the planet that would not interfere with natural rights.

We would not even be having this argument if it was not for the welfare state. That is where the problem lies and that is where we should direct our attention.

 

[supermario21]

Dismantling the welfare state isn't going to happen. If we lived in Judge Nap's America I would be fine with it because there would be no welfare to go around, but they are leeches to the system and will keep voting for Democrats to boot. We're on a slippery slope. Let's keep caving into these fools. First, it will be citizenship. Then, when they realize that doesn't work, let's promise to keep Obamacare so they can get cheap health care...All while the state keeps growing and growing.

 

[LibertyEagle]

How far down this hole do you want to go before you realize you don't understand Jefferson's position on this matter???

Did you even read this?
http://www.humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

Apparently not.

 

[CaptUSA]

LE, be careful about how you're reading Jefferson... It was not a question of should immigration occur, it was a concern about the speed.

 

[LibertyEagle]

LE, be careful about how you're reading Jefferson... It was not a question of should immigration occur, it was a concern about the speed.

Of course. No one here is against orderly immigration where people who WANT TO BECOME AMERICANS can be assimilated. That is NOT what we have now. Nor is it what many here in this thread are advocating.

 

[sailingaway]

We have seen how little power we have to end the welfare state. I think it is disingenuous to suggest we start with that when the abuse of the system those who are forced to depend on because their money is stripped from them by law is ongoing and real.

Yes, I agree it is the welfare system, but that exists, and the movement is to be all more 'inclusive' in letting those who didn't pay in into the various programs, after all, the elite don't use them, govt even has a pension system separate from Social Security.

It reminds me of when I worked at a company that wanted a program to give incentives for carpooling. All sorts of prizes were thought up by those who weren't going to pay for them, but the CEO went with ENTRIES to a sweepstakes. Then he could cap the cost of the prize and however many entries there were was no skin off the company's nose, and no extra cost. So he could be outright lavish with awarding ENTRIES.

 

[CT4Liberty]

Of course. No one here is against orderly immigration where people who WANT TO BECOME AMERICANS can be assimilated. That is NOT what we have now. Nor is it what many here in this thread are advocating.

I see a big difference between immigration and citizenship... Article 1 Section 8 talks about naturalization (citizenship) but nowhere is the word immigration mentioned. People should be able to freely move through our country, so long as they obey the laws of the State they are in and any Federal laws.

If they want to "become Americans" then there is a process for that, which not everyone will be allowed to become.

 

[CaptUSA]

Of course. No one here is against orderly immigration where people who WANT TO BECOME AMERICANS can be assimilated. That is NOT what we have now. Nor is it what many here in this thread are advocating.

Perhaps, this is the most instructive quote:

"If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements." - TJ

Jefferson most certainly was in favor of immigration, but was concerned that some wanted to actively encourage more to come. This is the welfare state. It is encouraging people to come by giving them favors when they arrive. Jefferson, and all of us, oppose this. If you end this encouragement, you end the problem.

You don't need to further restrict the liberty of people. Freedom solves problems. Restrictions on freedom causes problems.


So to sum up Jefferson's real thoughts on the matter... He didn't want the government to restrict what he saw as a natural right, but he also cautioned against actively promoting more immigration unnaturally. This is almost exactly what the Judge is saying.

 

[CT4Liberty]

You don't need to further restrict the liberty of people. Freedom solves problems. Restrictions on freedom causes problems.

So very true, which is why legislators love to do what they do... they write a law to fix a problem they created through unintended (I'll be generous and assume it was unintended) consequences of a previous law... rinse and repeat. Then they all high five each other and have a giant circle jerk of what great humanitarians they are because they "fixed" the problem.