Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."

[Giuliani was there on 911]

I'm extremely disappointed to hear him say that

 

[RickyJ]

If this stupid government didn't make coming here to live, or work so freakin hard in the first place, amnesty wouldn't even be an issue.

Hard for some people, very easy for others. Considering the job market here, we really don't need any more immigration for a while.

 

[No Free Beer]

ok. So yeah, i got your point. If you don't have the proper papers, bad things happen. I've seen many a political thriller set in fascist-occupied countries that utilize that whole "vere are your payperz" thing. Pretty awesome idea for imprisoning one's population...you know, like SSNs do...

That's not what I am saying.

What I was saying is that we ALREADY (essentially) have national ID cards.

 

[erowe1]

What I was saying is that we ALREADY (essentially) have national ID cards.

We should get rid of them. Right?

 

[otherone]

That's not what I am saying.

What I was saying is that we ALREADY (essentially) have national ID cards.

THAT's what I'm saying you said! Except you also put forth the idea that we should have a LAW that kicks out foreigners if they don't have one! And that local authorities should check for these papers!

 

[BSWPaulsen]

I side with Napolitano on this one.

As for the arguments about people crossing private property in order to traverse the border, it is highly doubtful that the "owners" actually use all of that property, and arbitrarily deciding where people can travel based on imaginary lines is irrational. Any understanding of property rights that creates ownership of unused land can and should be rejected on logical grounds.

What is not a right is to violate the rights of others when there is no clear way that yours have been aggressed against. If immigrants destroy private property in the process (and this has happened), then they should be punished in accordance with law. If not, then they should be free to pursue their own prosperity - this was one of the principles that made the USA great.

If we're going to deal with the State at all, then it can safely be assumed that one within the Nation-State's boundaries is subject to its laws by virtue of voluntarily moving themselves into its territory.

The real problem here is the State's welfare programs providing an incentive that we are coerced into providing, and that is where a lot of the xenophobia stems from. I cannot imagine we'd be having this conversation if the Federal authority weren't so damn out of control, and restricting all of our opportunities.

The problem isn't immigrants. The problem is the State not fulfilling what should be its only responsibility - administering law based on human rights - and choosing other priorities.

 

[Brett85]

I think a guest worker program should be created that makes it easier for immigrants to come here and work and feed their families. But, we should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

There is always going to be split on abortion and immigration and on a lot or Rothbard's ideas about government and money. I think people agree on most other issues.

Okay, let me use the American spectrum, something I concocted, to reduce the issue of immigration to our Founding Fathers. You see, that is the one thing people miss right off the bat. In discussing an issue, the first necessity is to reduce down to common ground. This is no small matter as neither William F. Buckley nor Noam Chomsky did this in their debating each other. Yet, Socrates himself never quit reducing period. Or, as Plato portrayed him, he never elaborated. Over twenty years of studying under him, Plato finally unraveled enough about him to elaborate on Socrates's theories.
Pretend that you are Socrates and I am Plato living today. In his question about what is the United States and how would people living their think of the issue of immigration, I'd first narrow down to our Founding Fathers.
Okay, so his first question in response is why I would refer to our Founders in the higher case.
I'd answer, unlike lessor fathers, it is because they took up the issue concerning truth.
He would ask what truth?
I'd say the self-evident truths pertaining to the one unapproachable Truth.
He would ask me to define Truth?
I'd say that this is the Truth the sophists argued in favor of during the times of ancient Greece when they would put on performances for money in front of rich Greeks arguing both sides of a debate. In contrast, the self evident truths our Founders declared as unalienable were the Platonic best principled ways traveling in a direction towards that unapproachable Truth.
What is unalienable.
Unalienable is a conclusion which is bipartisan and apolitical. The self evident and unalienable truths were established by natural law.
What is natural law?
Natural law was the metaphysical scientific method used during the time of our Fathers.
What is a metaphysical scientific method?
It is a reduced truth to the extent that it is undeniable, but incomprehensible. It isn't a theory of this and / or that. The conclusion isn't up for debate because, as it was believed during the time, an analysis was included in with the incomprehensible conclusion to explain it such a way that wasn't misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misconveyed (the reason for the development of linguistics).
And so on . . .
Pertaining to the question of immigration, our conversation would go like this:
As an American, what do you think about the issue of immigration?
Well, the American spectrum is different from the Aristotilian golden mean as I put a enthroned tyrant at the farthest point of one end of the scale and a prostitute at the farthest point of the other end of the scale. As a tyrant, an immigrant would be perceived as a good thing as he or she as workers would drive down the price of labor. As a prostitute, an immigrant would be perceived as a bad thing as he or she would drive down the price of labor.
Reducing this down even further, Socrates would learn that those in tyranny, the ones represented by the king, are the ones who read and understand the news. Meanwhile, those who are disadvantaged, the ones represented by the prostitute, wither don't read, don't understand, or are ones deceived by the news.
There is just so much that can be learned by reducing to our Founders that one never really has to elaborate from an established platform of the left and right false dichotomy.

 

[RickyJ]

I think a guest worker program should be created that makes it easier for immigrants to come here and work and feed their families. But, we should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens.

How about a citizen worker program for Americans to work in their own nation? I got no problems with foreigners working here as long as they aren't taking a job that a qualified American is perfectly capable of doing. But that is not the case for the majority of foreign workers in this nation right now. Most foreigners working here now are directly displacing qualified Americans for the job they are doing.

 

[erowe1]

THAT's what I'm saying you said! Except you also put forth the idea that we should have a LAW that kicks out foreigners if they don't have one! And that local authorities should check for these papers!

When you get down to details, everyone who wants the federal government to regulate immigration ultimately has to be for that.

 

[erowe1]

How about a citizen worker program for Americans to work in their own nation? I got no problems with foreigners working here as long as they aren't taking a job that a qualified American is perfectly capable of doing. But that is not the case for the majority of foreign workers in this nation right now. Most foreigners working here now are directly displacing qualified Americans for the job they are doing.

It's not like there's some finite number of jobs out there where when one person gets one that leaves one less for someone else.

 

[Danke]

Typical irrational answer.

We all have SS numbers, dude.

Get real.

You know one has to voluntarily apply for a SSN (or one's parents) right? I did it when I was 16.

If it was mandatory (ie, a must have gov. ID), the government would just assign you one.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I side with Napolitano on this one.

As for the arguments about people crossing private property in order to traverse the border, it is highly doubtful that the "owners" actually use all of that property, and arbitrarily deciding where people can travel based on imaginary lines is irrational. Any understanding of property rights that creates ownership of unused land can and should be rejected on logical grounds.

What is not a right is to violate the rights of others when there is no clear way that yours have been aggressed against. If immigrants destroy private property in the process (and this has happened), then they should be punished in accordance with law. If not, then they should be free to pursue their own prosperity - this was one of the principles that made the USA great.

If we're going to deal with the State at all, then it can safely be assumed that one within the Nation-State's boundaries is subject to its laws by virtue of voluntarily moving themselves into its territory.

The real problem here is the State's welfare programs providing an incentive that we are coerced into providing, and that is where a lot of the xenophobia stems from. I cannot imagine we'd be having this conversation if the Federal authority were so damn out of control, and restricting all of our opportunities.

The problem isn't immigrants. The problem is the State not fulfilling what should be its only responsibility - administering law based on human rights - and choosing other priorities.

By natural law, the homeless prostitute owns all that land as well as the wealth. The enthroned king, the necessary tyrant, just owns their title meaning that he or she are the true trespassers on the land and the borrowers of everything they own. In other words, to blow this out of the water, the only reason for keeping any government around or the law for that matter is to advance the new order our Founders established in the Declaration of Independence. "All men," both male and female, were born endowed with the same exact business agenda for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This means the highest enthroned king and the lowest homeless prostitute. That is the new order we live by.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

How about a citizen worker program for Americans to work in their own nation? I got no problems with foreigners working here as long as they aren't taking a job that a qualified American is perfectly capable of doing. But that is not the case for the majority of foreign workers in this nation right now. Most foreigners working here now are directly displacing qualified Americans for the job they are doing.

Quit viewing jobs as a finite resource and tell the State to undo their stupidity vis a vis property rights preventing us from going out, claiming our own unused land, creating our own job, and generating our own wealth. Tell the State to stop regulating industry in such a way that we don't have the same opportunities as our ancestors to foment our own business.

There is wealth to be had, and the State keeps us from it. The State has won this conversation by dictating its terms, and training us to think the limit of our ambitions is working for some company. By doing that, we're pitted against our own fellow man that is just trying to make his way in life.

Pardon the language, but here's what all liberty-minded folk should be saying: fuck that.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

By natural law, the homeless prostitute owns all that land as well as the wealth. The enthroned king, the necessary tyrant, just owns their title meaning that he or she are the true trespassers on the land and the borrowers of everything they own. In other words, to blow this out of the water, the only reason for keeping any government around or the law for that matter is to advance the new order our Founders established in the Declaration of Independence. "All men," both male and female, were born endowed with the same exact business agenda for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This means the highest enthroned king and the lowest homeless prostitute. That is the new order we live by.

Private property stems from the principle of self-ownership, a natural right. "Natural law" does not point to universal ownership of everything as an a priori understanding. No more than a bird's nest belongs to all its fellow birds, than does a man's house belong to all other men. Evidence rejects your proposition.

 

[Danke]

What makes me a "US Citizen?" The fact that I was born in one of the States? (Yes I know what the 14A says).

But if it was a home birth (as an example) with no gov. records, who is to say otherwise? And where are the Gov. agents gonna send me as I don't have official "papers?"

 

[otherone]

When you get down to details, everyone who wants the federal government to regulate immigration ultimately has to be for that.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Why is it I got to tolerate some jack-booted statie peering into my jeep asking for my papers just because someone thinks Mexicans shouldn't be here....haven't we had enough of this crap from the TSA? Maybe the TSA subhumans should check our floorboards and attics in case we're harboring Jews Latinos

 

[otherone]

But if it was a home birth (as an example) with no gov. records, who is to say otherwise? And where are the Gov. agents gonna send me as I don't have official "papers?"

yeah. we have a sub-forum for living off the grid; but I guess one has to be on the grid first to live off it? You know..no "off-gridding" for illegals!!!

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Private property stems from the principle of self-ownership, a natural right. "Natural law" does not point to universal ownership of everything as an a priori understanding. No more than a bird's nest belongs to all its fellow birds, than does a man's house belong to all other men. Evidence rejects your proposition.

On the political spectrum, one never arrives at either the enthroned king or the homeless prostitute. The significance of the spectrum is how we all exist somewhere in the middle either in prosperity represented by the king or in subsistence represented by the prostitute. As the multitude were represented by the prostitute, the twelve disciples were represented by tyranny. When the disciples ordered the uncomely multitude away to take care of themselves at the market (basically telling them to go to hell and to get lost), Jesus interceded on their behalf Willing all property to the most worthless by commanding that they "Lay back where you stand." He then turned to His Disciples stripping them of their birthright ownership making them serving trespassers by commanding that they "give them something to eat!"
This is on the highest level here. In other words, a natural right during the time of John Locke reduced on the physical level as there existed no such thing as the cognitive sciences during his time. So, a natural right reduced on the level of DnA. It is a different right than a civil right. As Americans, we have both civil and natural rights. Human rights are just confusion caused by people who don't understand that we have both natural and civil rights.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

On the political spectrum, one never arrives at either the enthroned king or the homeless prostitute. The significance of the spectrum is how we all exist somewhere in the middle either in prosperity represented by the king or in subsistence represented by the prostitute. As the multitude were represented by the prostitute, the twelve disciples were represented by tyranny. When the disciples ordered the uncomely multitude away to take care of themselves at the market (basically telling them to go to hell and to get lost), Jesus interceded on their behalf Willing all property to them by commanding that they "Lay back where you stand." He then turned to His Disciples stripping them of their birthright ownership making them serving trespassers by commanding that they "give them something to eat!"
This is on the highest level here. In other words, a natural right during the time of John Locke reduced on the physical level as there existed no such thing as the cognitive sciences during his time. So, a natural right reduced on the level of DnA. It is a different right than a civil right. As Americans, we have both civil and natural rights. Human rights are just confusion caused by people who don't understand that we have both natural and civil rights.

Confusing an admonishment to the disciples to care for their fellow man as pertinent to a discussion of what constitutes rights is tantamount to a red herring.

Human rights, those rights granted to us by virtue of our humanity, trump civil rights. Failure to recognize the arbitrary nature of civil rights inevitably leads to an inflated sense of importance attached to the State, and passive acquiescence to its abuse(s) of power. You have fallen into this trap.