Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."

[torchbearer]

Good for the judge. Anything except open borders is not liberty.

I love the judge.
It seemed like, to me, that Ron Paul enabled the judge to "come out of the closet" completely on his libertarianism.
prior to Ron, his Fox New appearances were strickly legal, and his radio show was kind of neoconish.

 

[torchbearer]

I bet the native Americans from the founding era would disagree.

they were conquered by inadequate immune systems, inferior technology, and lack of industrialization.
even if they were bigots and wanted to close their borders, they couldn't enforce it.

 

[Deborah K]

they were conquered by inadequate immune systems, inferior technology, and lack of industrialization.
even if they were bigots and wanted to close their borders, they couldn't enforce it.

None of which addresses the principle of open borders. Regardless of whether or not they could protect their lands from being invaded, the point is, they would have, if they could have.

And, btw, wanting to protect your property from being invaded isn't bigotry.

 

[torchbearer]

None of which addresses the principle of open borders. Regardless of whether or not they could protect their lands from being invaded, the point is, they would have, if they could have.

And, btw, wanting to protect your property from being invaded isn't bigotry.

It is when it only concern brown people who speak a different language.
People's biggest "fears"(that control them) are "they" won't assimilate. xenophobia.

 

[RickyJ]

It is when it only concern brown people who speak a different language.
People's biggest "fears"(that control them) are "they" won't assimilate. xenophobia.

Try to go to Mexico illegally and see how they treat you. Heck, go there legally and try to buy some land, they won't let you, you have to be a Mexican citizen to buy land in Mexico. Every nation on Earth protects their border, that won't change unless there is a one world government and concentrated power like that is not a good idea at all. And no, it is not just about Mexican immigrants. As far as I am concerned they are not even the main immigration problem. The main immigration problem is those coming here legally from places like India, China, Russia, South America and Africa. The reason they are a problem is because they are not needed, we have high unemployment here and we don't need them, but corporations like to exploit them because they know that they must have a job to stay in America on work visas so they know they can treat them like crap and not worry about them quiting. They can't do the same with an American citizen because they would quit and find work elsewhere. Patriotism is not a dirty word. It is OK to stand up for your nation and even fight for it, it is even a noble thing to do. The same holds true for American corporations, they too should have some loyalty to America and not be afraid to be patriotic as well.

 

[erowe1]

Here:

That's not an example. It's just a repetition of the claim you keep making without giving any reasons.

I could claim that the Bill of Rights gives Congress the power to write laws having to do with the establishment of Religion, and leave my claim out there as though it's self-evident. But that wouldn't count as giving evidence for anything.

To any subset of the population and their representative in congress.

If you think that, then you completely misunderstand the Constitution. It dictates nothing at all to any subset of the American people about what their culture is to be or anything else, apart from that subset that makes up the federal government itself. And what the Constitution does dictate to that government precludes that government from dictating our culture to us. If you support having a federal government that dictates our culture to us, then you do not support a federal government that follows the Constitution.

There is no secret definition, it means exactly what the words mean.

But the words on their own don't mean anything relevant to this discussion. And I think you're trying to squeeze some relevance out of them.

A dictionary definition of "culturally neutral government" would not necessarily mean a government that abstains from dictating people's culture to them. It could mean something as empty as a government that doesn't reflect anything cultural, to borrow another of your terms.

 

[torchbearer]

Try to go to Mexico illegally and see how they treat you. Heck, go there legally and try to buy some land, they won't let you, you have to be a Mexican citizen to buy land in Mexico. Every nation on Earth protects their border, that won't change unless there is a one world government and concentrated power like that is not a good idea at all. And no, it is not just about Mexican immigrants. As far as I am concerned they are not even the main immigration problem. The main immigration problem is those coming here legally from places like India, China, Russia, South America and Africa. The reason they are a problem is because they are not needed, we have high unemployment here and we don't need them, but corporations like to exploit them because they know that they must have a job to stay in America on work visas so they know they can treat them like crap and not worry about them quiting. They can't do the same with an American citizen because they would quit and find work elsewhere. Patriotism is not a dirty word. It is OK to stand up for your nation and even fight for it, it is even a noble thing to do. The same holds true for American corporations, they too should have some loyalty to America and not be afraid to be patriotic as well.

I lived in Jamaica for most of a year without "permission".
They treated me great. They respected me, honored my property purchase and everything. Maybe we should try that out. Respecting other people's property. I decide who I allow on mine, you decide who you allow on yours.
Great People, by the way.

 

[erowe1]

Try to go to Mexico illegally and see how they treat you. Heck, go there legally and try to buy some land, they won't let you, you have to be a Mexican citizen to buy land in Mexico.

Is that what you aspire to?

Every nation on Earth protects their border, that won't change unless there is a one world government and concentrated power like that is not a good idea at all.

I haven't seen a single person in this thread, or for that matter ever on this website say that we shouldn't protect our border.

That's one of the problems with the way your side always discusses this issue. They sweep aside the specifics of the actual violations of rights that are involved in what they know would need to be done to control the makeup of our nation's population the way they want to control it, and fall back on platitudes like "border protection" and "sovereignty" that could mean all sorts of things, both good and bad, and then pull a switcheroo on you, where if you advocate for the good sense, they demand that you accept the bad one.

The main immigration problem is those coming here legally from places like India, China, Russia, South America and Africa. The reason they are a problem is because they are not needed,

Not needed by whom? By you? Fine, then don't invite anyone over here from those countries. Just don't act like those of us who feel differently have no right to invite them.

Patriotism is not a dirty word. It is OK to stand up for your nation and even fight for it, it is even a noble thing to do. The same holds true for American corporations, they too should have some loyalty to America and not be afraid to be patriotic as well.

Standing up for your nation means standing up against the regime that subjugates it. Refusing to comply with their tyranny by running businesses without their approval and paying employees under the table is the essence of patriotism.

 

[dinosaur]

That's not an example.

Not an example of what? Because it is an example of cultural values in the constitution. And it does support my claim that the constitution has a cultural bias, one that not all other cultures embrace.

It's just a repetition of the claim you keep making without giving any reasons.

I could claim that the Bill of Rights gives Congress the power to write laws having to do with the establishment of Religion, and leave my claim out there as though it's self-evident. But that wouldn't count as giving evidence for anything.

I made a claim and gave an example, see above.

If you think that, then you completely misunderstand the Constitution. It dictates nothing at all to any subset of the American people about what their culture is to be or anything else, apart from that subset that makes up the federal government itself. And what the Constitution does dictate to that government precludes that government from dictating our culture to us. If you support having a federal government that dictates our culture to us, then you do not support a federal government that follows the Constitution.

The constitution does dictate that the right to bear arms will be valued so highly that no other right can trump it. This is a cultural value

But the words on their own don't mean anything relevant to this discussion. And I think you're trying to squeeze some relevance out of them.

And I have no idea if you are being deliberately obtuse or if your belief that the constitution in no way imposes upon people is blinding you. Try asking someone from India if they would feel dictated to if our constitution became the law of their land.

A dictionary definition of "culturally neutral government" would not necessarily mean a government that abstains from dictating people's culture to them. It could mean something as empty as a government that doesn't reflect anything cultural, to borrow another of your terms.

If the law of the land didn't reflect cultural values, then it obviously wouldn't dictate any cultual values to anyone.

 

[UMULAS]

It is interesting the influence that you speak regarding the Iroquois Confederation. But the order of Western Civilization came out of Socrates. Without him, there would not have been a Plato or an Aristotle. Our Founders were plugged into the Greek Philosophers just as those founders of the French Revolution was also plugged into them. The Truth moves along and develops slowly.

Because Tao was an idiot amiritguyz?

 

[erowe1]

Not an example of what? Because it is an example of cultural values in the constitution.

No it isn't. It's just an assertion that they're there. Show me the quote you're talking about if you really have one. And again, vague notions of "cultural values in the Constitution" are not what this discussion is about. It's about the powers of the federal government over culture, or lack thereof.

And it does support my claim that the constitution has a cultural bias, one that not all other cultures embrace.

More vaguaries. This has nothing to do with giving the federal government power over culture. It may even be the exact opposite. If you're talking about other cultures where people expect the government to regulate their culture, then the cultural bias of the Constitution is one that goes against that, not one that supports it. If constitutional government resulted in cultures in our country being different than those in others, then that result would come from the cultures of the people developing without the government's manipulation, not because of the federal government injecting itself into the process.

I made a claim and gave an example, see above.

Dinosaur keeps saying this. Does anybody see the example he's talking about?

The constitution does dictate that the right to bear arms will be valued so highly that no other right can trump it. This is a cultural value

Show me the quote you're talking about. I highly doubt that it will be something that grants any power to the federal government to dictate anything to us, cultural or otherwise.

And I have no idea if you are being deliberately obtuse or if your belief that the constitution in no way imposes upon people is blinding you. Try asking someone from India if they would feel dictated to if our constitution became the law of their land.

How much do people in India know about our Constitution. If they think it dictates things to the American people, then they're mistaken. It doesn't. Do you think it does? If so, then quote where.

If the law of the land didn't reflect cultural values, then it obviously wouldn't dictate any cultual values to anyone.

But that would be meaningless. How could a constitution not "reflect cultural values"?

The point is, even if it does reflect cultural values, it still shouldn't empower the government to dictate any cultural values to anyone.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Try to go to Mexico illegally and see how they treat you. Heck, go there legally and try to buy some land, they won't let you, you have to be a Mexican citizen to buy land in Mexico. Every nation on Earth protects their border, that won't change unless there is a one world government and concentrated power like that is not a good idea at all. And no, it is not just about Mexican immigrants. As far as I am concerned they are not even the main immigration problem. The main immigration problem is those coming here legally from places like India, China, Russia, South America and Africa. The reason they are a problem is because they are not needed, we have high unemployment here and we don't need them, but corporations like to exploit them because they know that they must have a job to stay in America on work visas so they know they can treat them like crap and not worry about them quiting. They can't do the same with an American citizen because they would quit and find work elsewhere. Patriotism is not a dirty word. It is OK to stand up for your nation and even fight for it, it is even a noble thing to do. The same holds true for American corporations, they too should have some loyalty to America and not be afraid to be patriotic as well.

I would like some proof of this. Fred Reed lives in Mexico without Mexican citizenship (last I heard). I've also heard about well-to-do gringos who have summer homes in Mexico.

 

[No Free Beer]

So then who are you talking about?

Also, "open borders" is a meaningless term. Ron Paul is not for deporting illegal immigrants, nor is he for laws regulating whether they can live or work here, nor is he for any kind of national id, including Social Security numbers, nor is he for building a wall on the border. As far as I can tell his position is the same as mine, because I'm not for any of those things either. How about you?

IIRC though, Ron Paul did talk about respecting Pakistan's sovereignty, and I never did.

My point is, that you cannot be an Open Border Agent and be against Obama's foreign policy decision to go into Pakistan (presumbly without Pakistan's approval) and shoot OBL.

Now, I wasn't directing this exact hypocrisy towards you, but you chimed in and I defended my position.

Otherone stated his hypocrisy.

 

[dinosaur]

believe what you want erowe

But stop making the assumption that dictating some aspects of culture means " giving the federal government power over culture".

 

[fr33]

I would like some proof of this. Fred Reed lives in Mexico without Mexican citizenship (last I heard). I've also heard about well-to-do gringos who have summer homes in Mexico.

Without Mexican citizenship, they don't outright own the property. They probably have some other type of lease contract. I knew a guy who was running some feedlots and farmland down there but he couldn't own it.

 

[fr33]

Without Mexican citizenship, they don't outright own the property. They probably have some other type of lease contract. I knew a guy who was running some feedlots and farmland down there but he couldn't own it.

Derp. Then I go googling for proof and I'm finding sites that say things have recently changed.

http://www.baja123.com/FOREIGNERS_BUYING_PROPERTY_IN_MEXICO/page_1242993.html

http://www.blueroadrunner.com/ownprop.htm

 

[UMULAS]

None of which addresses the principle of open borders. Regardless of whether or not they could protect their lands from being invaded, the point is, they would have, if they could have.

And, btw, wanting to protect your property from being invaded isn't bigotry.

INVASION is different than making land settlement agreements.


EX:

Roger Williams making peaceful terms in Rhode Island = Good
Amish in Penn. for a while = Good
Europeans destroying land and invading=Bad

NO ONE here going pro-immigrant is supporting invasion, we are supporting the right to move freely and to have land term agreements, as well as following the social contract theory in the state/country/district/private land.

Now if anyone (immigrant or not) is invading land and breaking the law, THEN that's a different story.

 

[Confederate]

Without Mexican citizenship, they don't outright own the property. They probably have some other type of lease contract. I knew a guy who was running some feedlots and farmland down there but he couldn't own it.

Yup, foreigners are not allowed to own land 50km from the ocean or 100km from international borders. The US should have the same policy.

 

[UMULAS]

My point is, that you cannot be an Open Border Agent and be against Obama's foreign policy decision to go into Pakistan (presumbly without Pakistan's approval) and shoot OBL.

Now, I wasn't directing this exact hypocrisy towards you, but you chimed in and I defended my position.

Otherone stated his hypocrisy.

Can you repeat that again please?

 

[Confederate]

Derp. Then I go googling for proof and I'm finding sites that say things have recently changed.

http://www.baja123.com/FOREIGNERS_BUYING_PROPERTY_IN_MEXICO/page_1242993.html

http://www.blueroadrunner.com/ownprop.htm

The property must be owned by a Mexican trust, not by the foreigner himself.