Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."

[LibertyEagle]

It may not be a right to become part of our club, but it is a natural right to move your body without concern for imaginary lines.

You believe national sovereignty is imaginary?

 

[jllundqu]

You do realize that this is basically what everyone outside of Libertarians says about most liberty-oriented ideals, right? "It sounds good, but we NEED government to do such and such."

I don't care much about "keeping criminals out" because I have absolutely no faith that the current system works any better in that regard than a totally borderless system would. As far as "immigrants voting Democrat" I don't particularly care for that line of thinking either. If the Republicans stop being a party built on fear and bigotry and become a party that embraces Liberty on all fronts, they may actually attract new voters.

So in your world view... we have complete and total open borders, no nation states at all, and all will just be peachy? And you also expect other nations to dissolve their borders as well right? If we don't have a border, we no longer have a country... but I guess from a true Libertarian perspective that is what you would advocate. I am not a libertarian... I am a minarchist... I like having a country with a founding document... and i like defending my country from those would would seek to dissolve it. Globalists around the world are smiling at the fact that Ron Paul supporters like you are playing right into their plans to become borderless and further integrate nations into giant conglomerate corporate states ala the EU and North American Union. No thanks... I like my country with imaginary lines.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration. -theconstitution.org

 

[fisharmor]

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.

What right is being protected by disallowing immigration?
What right is being destroyed by allowing immigration?
Does the ninth amendment not exist?

 

[fisharmor]

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.

Page 1 dealt with this. Nobody is advocating that they be able to vote the second their clothes dry out.

 

[CaptUSA]

you can't have open borders and a welfare state, and there is no plan on the table to end the welfare state, to the contrary.

I agree with this entirely. I think the Judge would agree with you as well. But when you are talking about natural rights, he was right on point. The consistent position here is to dismantle the welfare state to stop luring people in, and then allow anyone who wants to come, to come. If you don't do it in this order, you are asking for destruction. I believe this position is held by both Ron Paul and the Judge.

 

[familydog]

The resounding lack of empathy for fellow human beings here is quite unnerving.

I feel very sad for those who will use violence and domination to uphold the archaic concept of a "nation."

 

[LibertyEagle]

The resounding lack of empathy for fellow human beings here is quite unnerving.

I feel very sad for those who will use violence and domination to uphold the archaic concept of a "nation."

Spoken like a true world government aficionado.

Sorry, but none for me.

 

[jllundqu]

The resounding lack of empathy for fellow human beings here is quite unnerving.

I feel very sad for those who will use violence and domination to uphold the archaic concept of a "nation."

It is not a lack of empathy... it is a matter of property rights. The Judge is spot on in terms of all human beings have natural rights. Put that into the context of a massive welfare state and it gets complicated. If I am forced to pay thru taxation etc for the endless masses that come here illegally, of course I don't want an open border! That would lead to ruin and a complete destruction of my property rights! You can't simultaneously have millions of people flooding the country while an oppressive government says "Oh by the way, we are going to steal from the rest of you to pay for all of them"

If we lived in a world where my property rights were intact and we had a minarchist form of government, you could erase the border, no issues!

 

[KingNothing]

The resounding lack of empathy for fellow human beings here is quite unnerving.

I feel very sad for those who will use violence and domination to uphold the archaic concept of a "nation."

I totally agree with you. I know that I don't have the heart to actually turn anyone away.

 

[KingNothing]

Spoken like a true world government aficionado.

Sorry, but none for me.

World Government Aficionado's are concerned with individuals and basic human freedom? News to me.

You do realize that just because one entity that may be "bad" holds a belief, that does not necessarily make the belief "bad," don't you?



"You love your wife? Why, you know that Hitler loved his too, don't you, you Nazi sympathizer!"

 

[Carehn]

You believe national sovereignty is imaginary?

Yep, I don't believe the guns are or the welfare. but the idea of a nation is made up. If I was a mexican I would jump the border too. To you think the animal life on the border give a rats ass what site they are on? Why should humans? Its just land.

 

[jllundqu]

Yep, I don't believe the guns are or the welfare. but the idea of a nation is made up. If I was a mexican I would jump the border too. To you think the animal life on the border give a rats ass what site they are on? Why should humans? Its just land.

Wow... so now we are simply dumb animals. Okie dokie!

 

[familydog]

It is not a lack of empathy... it is a matter of property rights. The Judge is spot on in terms of all human beings have natural rights. Put that into the context of a massive welfare state and it gets complicated. If I am forced to pay thru taxation etc for the endless masses that come here illegally, of course I don't want an open border! That would lead to ruin and a complete destruction of my property rights! You can't simultaneously have millions of people flooding the country while an oppressive government says "Oh by the way, we are going to steal from the rest of you to pay for all of them"

If we lived in a world where my property rights were intact and we had a minarchist form of government, you could erase the border, no issues!

I understand your argument. However...

-They didn't choose the circumstances of their birth.
-They didn't choose to exist in a "War on Drugs" which destabilized their economy, destroyed millions of families and murdered millions more.
-They didn't choose a government that subsidizes corporate agriculture at the expense of small farmers.
-They didn't choose to live in one of the most dangerous places in the world, under a government that will murder them for having guns to protect themselves.
-Finally, they didn't choose to be so impoverished by government that they need to use government welfare services afforded to all Amuricans.

Look, the problems are not the victims of government violence.

The problem is government.

 

[supermario21]

Looks like the national immigration debate where the pro-amnesty crowd cries racism has made it to even these forums...sad to see, I'm sure many of us came from immigrant families within the last few generations. The problem isn't now, but in a few years. You know who's going to benefit the most from the proposed Medicaid expansion in Obamacare, or the subsidies for those that don't have it? Yep-the freshly amnestied illegals. Gee, I wonder who they vote for when candidate A is on the ballot (hopefully Rand Paul) saying he wants to dismantle Obamacare and reform entitlements and candidate B is saying how we need to preserve the safety net because Americans "take care of everyone." If you thought the environment was bad now, try when you've got millions who have brand new voting rights and are far more pro-big government than any of you could ever think. Pick 1, entitlements/welfare, or amnesty, but both are destructive to this country and will further push us to 1-world European/UN government.

 

[QuickZ06]

Americans telling other immigrants they are not welcome unless the king of the land (government) allows it, IRONY!

 

[jllundqu]

I understand your argument. However...

-They didn't choose the circumstances of their birth.
-They didn't choose to exist in a "War on Drugs" which destabilized their economy, destroyed millions of families and murdered millions more.
-They didn't choose a government that subsidizes corporate agriculture at the expense of small farmers.
-They didn't choose to live in one of the most dangerous places in the world, under a government that will murder them for having guns to protect themselves.
-Finally, they didn't choose to be so impoverished by government that they need to use government welfare services afforded to all Amuricans.

Look, the problems are not the victims of government violence.

The problem is government.

I agree with everything you just said!

--Just like I didn't choose to live in a welfare state
--I didn't choose to persecute the war on drugs
--I didn't vote to elect frauds for so called "leaders"
--It is not my problem that their country is a 3rd world narco state (admittedly a US created one)... I don't want that spilling into my back yard (Im in Arizona).

The problem IS government, as you say, but you are advocating more government force against me to pay for mexico's failed state!

 

[CaptUSA]

Pretty slick trick for the State, eh?

You know, get people all hooked on special favors by taking money from other people. Then, people in foreign lands want to get in on those favors and it attracts them. Then, the people whose money was being stolen want MORE government to keep those other people out.

If that doesn't work well enough, let's make certain plants illegal that people want. Then, we'll fight with guns anyone who tries to bring those plants over the border. When crimes increase and things start to crumble, the people whose rights to those plants were being infringed, want MORE government to build higher walls and use more violence and tougher restrictions to prevent the chaos.

Damn, it feels good to be a statist. It's so easy.

Government causes problems -> people want MORE government to solve them!

 

[jllundqu]

Pretty slick trick for the State, eh?

You know, get people all hooked on special favors by taking money from other people. Then, people in foreign lands want to get in on those favors and it attracts them. Then, the people whose money was being stolen want MORE government to keep those other people out.

If that doesn't work well enough, let's make certain plants illegal that people want. Then, we'll fight with guns anyone who tries to bring those plants over the border. When crimes increase and things start to crumble, the people whose rights to those plants were being infringed, want MORE government to build higher walls and use more violence and tougher restrictions to prevent the chaos.

Damn, it feels good to be a statist. It's so easy.

Government causes problems -> people want MORE government to solve them!

 

[jclay2]

As long as the welfare state exists, this should be a non-issue.

Get rid of the welfare state and birthright citizenship and THEN we will talk. Until then, NO!

Absolutely agree with this. As long as we are borrowing like its going out of style, we need to be firmly against any advances for amnesty and lax immigration.

 

[CaptUSA]

Absolutely agree with this. As long as we are borrowing like its going out of style, we need to be firmly against any advances for amnesty and lax immigration.

Trust me, I fully understand the order in which things need to occur, but I find it incredibly difficult to argue for liberty while arguing against it. I will not allow the failures of this government to drive me into their arms asking for MORE government. It won't happen.