Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."

[Raudsarw]

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

Welcome immigrants, or send back the statue of liberty. The Welfare state is NOT sufficient reason to deny immigration rights. Because of one infringement on liberty, you want even more? If anything, a stream of immigrants coming to collect benefits strengthens the argument that the welfare state is unsustainable.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I have lots of rights to interfere with what others want to do, but only if what they want to do impinges on my rights. If it doesn't, then I have no right to stop them.

So you will wait until you are surrounded, outnumbered, outvoted, and outgunned, and when they come to your home to remove you, you will then say that your rights are being infringed?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I think individuals formed nationstates to defend their rights to create their own system of governance

They didn't actually do that, of course. Not historically. I don't know how important it is that you think this to your ultimate conclusions and world-view, perhaps it doesn't really matter one way or the other. But regardless, if you're interested in the truth, you should eventually stop thinking this. Because it did not happen.

I recommend reading, for example, The State, by Franz Oppenheimer.

 

[twomp]

MOAR GUVMINT!

LOTS MORE!!

We need walls and armed guards on the walls. We need identifications for EVERYONE. We need cameras in every corner and drones over every city. We need to treat the immigrants like POKEMON. GOTTA CATCH EM ALL!!!

 

[erowe1]

So you will wait until you are surrounded, outnumbered, outvoted, and outgunned, and when they come to your home to remove you, you will then say that your rights are being infringed?

Or when anyone does anything against my rights. But until they do, what option do I have? It seems like what you're getting at is that I should do something that is wrong right now, in order to prevent someone from having the ability to do something wrong to me in the future.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

I wish I lived in The Judge's world, and Ron Paul's world for that matter, but alas... we live in this one. Granting citizenship to 12 million illlegals (whom all data shows would vote overwhelmingly Democrat) would end the two party system forever. We would have a total socialist/communist statist's wet dream.

Yes. GOP is fooling themselves by pretending to be illegal alien friendly. Most illegals will become democrats. GOP should probably offer an alternative to amnesty, like revamping the immigration process so it is faster and/or cheaper even if it might cost more money. GOP know hispanics mostly lean towards democrats.. which is why GOP is trying to pander to them. Immigration and Rubio. I respect hispanics enough to say that they are not going to fall for it. Many asians will be democrats as well.

Ending 2 party system might not be so bad... Not like we get anything done with the 2 party system (although it does keep SOME bad things from passing). If democrats have sole power, then they can take sole blame. Instead of passing the puck to each other and perpetuating this bullS--t.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

What does that mean? Moving somewhere?

You keep talking about the right to leave the club. That right exists.

If someone doesn't want to be a member of an HOA, they have the right to leave that club too.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

At last check, the right of emigration still exists in the club of the United Socialist States of America.

If there really was a group of people who had legitimately, through purely voluntary means, achieved ownership of 1/3 of North America, then yes, it would be perfectly legitimate for them to treat it as their property -- since it is their property -- and to make rules regarding who is welcome and how they must behave while guests "in their house" so to speak. So your logic is totally sound and fine, given such a group.

Since there is no such group, any men arrogating to themselves the right to do this are mere usurpers. I oppose usurpation. I think we all do. Don't you?

 

[sailingaway]

They didn't actually do that, of course. Not historically. I don't know how important it is that you think this to your ultimate conclusions and world-view, perhaps it doesn't really matter one way or the other. But regardless, if you're interested in the truth, you should eventually stop thinking this. Because it did not happen.

I recommend reading, for example, The State, by Franz Oppenheimer.

I spoke sloppily, but I will take a look at your link. I should have said that in currently analyzing where we are now and the comparative evils I see local rule as best and most likely to let people live as they want. but then they need to enforce, locally, how they want it. Cities, counties, states, Federal.... each needs to have their jurisdiction, more local the better. Vs global, I think national sovereignty permits more local policy influence. The bigger and more distant the decision making body the bigger the special interest has to be to influence it, the less voice the individual has. That is sort of what I meant, not that when they were initially formed people went through this same mindset.

 

[erowe1]

You keep talking about the right to leave the club. That right exists.

If someone doesn't want to be a member of an HOA, they have the right to leave that club too.

First of all, joining a club in the first place has to be by choice, that includes HOA's.

And if the right of the regime in DC to rule over me is based on my supposedly accepting that rule by not moving away, then is emigrating really a way out of the club? Like, if I went to, say, Iraq, I'd be free from having my rights violated by the club I never joined? And let's say that were true, what would happen when we did get one-world-government (if you don't think it's here already)? Would you tell me that you have a right to violate other peoples' rights on the grounds that if they don't like it they can always go to Mars?

 

[erowe1]

You keep talking about the right to leave the club. That right exists.

If someone doesn't want to be a member of an HOA, they have the right to leave that club too.

First of all, joining a club in the first place has to be by choice, that includes HOA's.

And if the right of the regime in DC to rule over me is based on my supposedly accepting that rule by not moving away, then is emigrating really a way out of the club? Like, if I went to, say, Iraq, I'd be free from having my rights violated by the club I never joined? And let's say that were true, what would happen when we did get one-world-government (if you don't think it's here already)? Would you tell me that you have a right to violate other peoples' rights on the grounds that if they don't like it they can always go to Mars?

 

[loveableteddybear]

I can't tell what your answer to the question is. You're the one who said that government has a right to limit the rights of those who accept it. Do you really think acceptance of it is necessary? Or would you rather eliminate that part of what you said, and just say that government has a right to limit peoples' rights, whether they accept it or not.

Nobody has a right to sacrifice someone else to Molech. So that's not an example of someone's rights being limited.

You're complicating it Rowe. Yes, the gov't can limit the rights of people. That's what gov't does. That's why we make a constitution to address what boundaries exist for gov't.

Molech worship is a right to those tha believe in it and your consent of 100% of those governed is silly.

 

[otherone]

Come to think of it, undocumented immigrants may be the last free people in the world. Why would anyone WANT to be saddled with a social security number?

 

[erowe1]

You're complicating it Rowe. Yes, the gov't can limit the rights of people. That's what gov't does. That's why we make a constitution to address what boundaries exist for gov't.

I'm not complicating it. I'm asking questions based on what you're saying. You're the one who said that the government has a right to limit the rights of those who accept it. I still can't tell if you meant that or not. Do you really think acceptance is necessary?

Molech worship is a right to those tha believe in it

Do you really believe that? So all I have to do to have the right to kill you is to believe I have that right?

and your consent of 100% of those governed is silly.

Who has the right to rule over someone without their consent? And where does that authority come from?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes. GOP is fooling themselves by pretending to be illegal alien friendly. Most illegals will become democrats. GOP should probably offer an alternative to amnesty, like revamping the immigration process so it is faster and/or cheaper even if it might cost more money. GOP know hispanics mostly lean towards democrats.. which is why GOP is trying to pander to them. Immigration and Rubio. I respect hispanics enough to say that they are not going to fall for it. Many asians will be democrats as well.

It's utterly foolish nonsense for the GOP to think that they will get more voters out of this. The California GOP is notorious for this thinking. The last two Senate races, they put up women because they wanted to get the female vote against a sitting female Senator. Hello McFly?! Why would a Democrat vote for a Republican? Just because they are both women? Yeah, that's some logic there.

(And no, this is not conjecture. I was in attendance at a small gathering where a GOP leadership old-timer was introducing Fiorina as the Senate candidate, and he explicitly said that it was about running a woman against a woman.)

 

[loveableteddybear]

All this comes down to your final question:

"Who has the right to rule over someone without their consent? And where does that authority come from?"

No one is born with the right. The right is taken by force and imposed upon the party with less force.

As Thrasymachus correctly observed in The Replubic, "Justice is the will of the stronger."

That's just reality, as no governing system can get 100% to agree on anything. The fact you stubbornly don't accept molech worship (which is just ancient abortion by the way) is simply an example of that.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I spoke sloppily, but I will take a look at your link. I should said that in currently analyzing where we are now and the comparative evils I see local rule as best and most likely to let people live as they want. but then they need to enforce, locally, how they want it. Cities, counties, states, Federal.... each needs to have their jurisdiction, more local the better. Vs global, I think national sovereignty permits more local policy influence. The bigger and more distant the decision making body the bigger the special interest has to be to influence it, the less voice the individual has. That is sort of what I meant, not that when they were initially formed people went through this same mindset.

I agree with all of this wholeheartedly. The smaller the polity, the more local the control, the better the situation will be. Decentralization is always preferable to centralization when it comes to states. 50 totally sovereign states would be such a much better situation than what we have now, which is essentially one mammoth nation-state ruling over the whole continent. And as you say, with counties: an America of 3000 independent, sovereign former-counties now-states, this would be like paradise on Earth! Liberty would blossom like out-of-control weeds. It would be amazing. And you go further and mention cities. Yes, sure, of course; cities should also be allowed to secede from their county-states and become independent city-states.

So up to that point, we're both on the same page. I just take the logic a mere two steps further. First, neighborhoods. Should a neighborhood not be permitted to peacefully choose independence from the city? And finally, families/individuals. Should they not be able to be masters of their own destinies?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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

You are quoting a pro-immigration propaganda poem.

 

[sailingaway]

I agree with all of this wholeheartedly. The smaller the polity, the more local the control, the better the situation will be. Decentralization is always preferable to centralization when it comes to states. 50 totally sovereign states would be such a much better situation than what we have now, which is essentially one mammoth nation-state ruling over the whole continent. And as you say, with counties: an America of 3000 independent, sovereign former-counties now-states, this would be like paradise on Earth! Liberty would blossom like out-of-control weeds. It would be amazing. And you go further and mention cities. Yes, sure, of course; cities should also be allowed to secede from their county-states and become independent city-states.

So up to that point, we're both on the same page. I just take the logic a mere two steps further. First, neighborhoods. Should a neighborhood not be permitted to peacefully choose independence from the city? And finally, families/individuals. Should they not be able to be masters of their own destinies?

Maybe, if they don't depend on the larger structure. I guess I'd have to think about implication, but I'm not opposed to the idea.

 

[erowe1]

All this comes down to your final question:

"Who has the right to rule over someone without their consent? And where does that authority come from?"

No one is born with the right. The right is taken by force and imposed upon the party with less force.

You're equivocating between is and ought. A right isn't simply what a person happens to succeed at. A right is something that they can do without being morally wrong. If there does not exist such a thing as right and wrong, then there is no such thing as rights. In that case there would be no meaning to a discussion about what a country's immigration laws ought to be, since there would be no such thing as ought.

Our rights (if such things exist) aren't given to us by whatever strong regime rules us. And if that regime violates our rights, that doesn't make them any less our rights.