Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."

[otherone]

Spoken like a true world government aficionado.

Sorry, but none for me.

ok. Let's play.
America..."land of the free". People want to come here because they want to be "free". It's a nice idea. Why America is supposed to be so frickin' sweet is that WE as an OF FOR and BY state acknowledge that ALL people have u-n-a-l-i-e-n-a-b-l-e Rights, and that this state is in existence fundamentally to protect those Rights. Saying "citizens only" for those unalienable Rights means the STATE NOW CONTROLS who has unalienable Rights, as it's the State that grants citizenship. The state does NOT create Rights. As far as "globalism" is concerned, America is supposed to be the frickin' city on the hill....
(this is a Liberty Movement, right?)

 

[jllundqu]

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.

So what would be your solution? Government cannot be completely removed from the equation. If you remove government from one part of the equation (lets say just dissolve the border and let everyone in) then one would have to remove government from the other parts of the equation (welfare, taxation, etc.). It's an impossible situation.. and like you said, created that way intentionally by statists. How does one REALISTICALLY solve the problem?

 

[The Goat]

+1, very well stated.

ok. Let's play.
America..."land of the free". People want to come here because they want to be "free". It's a nice idea. Why America is supposed to be so frickin' sweet is that WE as an OF FOR and BY state acknowledge that ALL people have u-n-a-l-i-e-n-a-b-l-e Rights, and that this state is in existence fundamentally to protect those Rights. Saying "citizens only" for those unalienable Rights means the STATE NOW CONTROLS who has unalienable Rights, as it's the State that grants citizenship. The state does NOT create Rights. As far as "globalism" is concerned, America is supposed to be the frickin' city on the hill....
(this is a Liberty Movement, right?)

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You have a right to walk anywhere you want without trespassing on private property.

In a free society, everywhere is private property. So no, you have no right to walk anywhere except on property which you own. In a free society like this, immigration goes from a macro problem to a micro one -- each person must decide to whom he wishes to grant the privilege of occupying his property.

 

[presence]

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

 

[Romulus]

You can not legalize a natural right, says the Judge.

 

[Dick Chaney]

wow... judge.

 

[familydog]

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!

Actually, I'm advocating the dissolution of all welfare. What I am not advocating for is holding a gun to someone's head in order to stop them from crossing an imaginary line.

 

[otherone]

Actually, I'm advocating the dissolution of all welfare. What I am not advocating for is holding a gun to someone's head in order to stop them from crossing an imaginary line.

I believe step one is starving the federal government.

 

[Ender]

Bullshit.

There is no right to become a citizen of our country. There are all kinds of people who have followed our laws who are waiting in line to become citizens and we now are going to grant amnesty to those who broke our laws?

I firmly disagree with the Judge.

I say bullshit to your statement- the Judge is spot-on.

If you believe in the Declaration of Independence, then you believe in the natural rights that come with being human. Get rid of entitlements and let people work and support free enterprise. Then EVERYONE prospers.

This country was never more prosperous than when immigration was easy.

 

[CaptUSA]

So what would be your solution? Government cannot be completely removed from the equation. If you remove government from one part of the equation (lets say just dissolve the border and let everyone in) then one would have to remove government from the other parts of the equation (welfare, taxation, etc.). It's an impossible situation.. and like you said, created that way intentionally by statists. How does one REALISTICALLY solve the problem?

Really, it's either a dismantling of the welfare state or a collapse of the welfare state. There is no other solution. But I will NOT give the government more power to restrict the liberty of people. I will NOT. They don't get to do this. They don't get to receive more power to "fix" a problem they created. They can either dismantle the welfare state or allow it to collapse.

 

[Ender]

In a free society, everywhere is private property. So no, you have no right to walk anywhere except on property which you own. In a free society like this, immigration goes from a macro problem to a micro one -- each person must decide to whom he wishes to grant the privilege of occupying his property.

Really.

So the English settlers were trespassing on private Indian property?

 

[Ender]

ok. Let's play.
America..."land of the free". People want to come here because they want to be "free". It's a nice idea. Why America is supposed to be so frickin' sweet is that WE as an OF FOR and BY state acknowledge that ALL people have u-n-a-l-i-e-n-a-b-l-e Rights, and that this state is in existence fundamentally to protect those Rights. Saying "citizens only" for those unalienable Rights means the STATE NOW CONTROLS who has unalienable Rights, as it's the State that grants citizenship. The state does NOT create Rights. As far as "globalism" is concerned, America is supposed to be the frickin' city on the hill....
(this is a Liberty Movement, right?)

Well said.

 

[sailingaway]

Really.

So the English settlers were trespassing on private Indian property?

If they had that system of laws, yes, but they had an open borders approach. See how that worked out for them...

--
LOL! I shouldn't get into this. I was looking to see if anyone addressed my points and no one did. They are my basis for what I believe, though, and all the rest, to me, doesn't address the situation we are actually in.

 

[Ender]

If they had that system of laws, yes, but they had an open borders approach. See how that worked out for them...

The "system of laws" you are advocating are antithesis to freedom.

 

[sailingaway]

The "system of laws" you are advocating are antithesis to freedom.

I'm not in the all land is private property camp, I'm in the sovereign nation camp. Were there no forced payments for school and medical and retirement and limited funds already insufficient for the burden on those systems, I would argue and vote as policy to my nation to have very, very welcoming immigration. However, where those things exist and have real impacts on those using, for example, a school system for their kids after years and years of working and paying for the schools so they would be there when needed, I don't think it is a legitimate use of government to swamp those systems with unlimited amounts of people who take out more in benefits than they pay in to those systems.

It is the existence of the use of force in the first instance that created the situation, but now here we are.

 

[otherone]

--
They are my basis for what I believe, though, and all the rest, to me, doesn't address the situation we are actually in.

Everything boils down to this question:
Who is sovereign: The state, or the individual?

 

[Carehn]

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

Yes. that's exactly what I said.

 

[Ender]

I'm not in the all land is private property camp, I'm in the sovereign nation camp. Were there no forced payments for school and medical and retirement and limited funds already insufficient for the burden on those systems, I would argue and vote as policy to my nation to have very, very welcoming immigration. However, where those things exist and have real impacts on those using, for example, a school system for their kids after years and years of working and paying for the schools so they would be there when needed, I don't think it is a legitimate use of government to swamp those systems with unlimited amounts of people who take out more in benefits than they pay in to those systems.

It is the existence of the use of force in the first instance that created the situation, but now here we are.

I repeat my earlier remark:

If you believe in the Declaration of Independence, then you believe in the natural rights that come with being human. Get rid of entitlements and let people work and support free enterprise. Then EVERYONE prospers.

This country was never more prosperous than when immigration was easy.

 

[sailingaway]

Everything boils down to this question:
Who is sovereign: The state, or the individual?

No, that is how you start your decision tree. I think individuals formed nationstates to defend their rights to create their own system of governance, and they have a right, if they are dumb enough, to want socialism, but when the state forces people to give up the fruit of their labor to pay for it the state has the obligation to manage it with integrity to deliver the promised services. I don't like socialism, but I do believe in self determination through local rule, and sovereignty, to me, is necessary to that, or how do you create your own way of life and protect it?

I am not an anarchist, as I said.