Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."

[RickyJ]

We aren't a Constitutional government. The difference came in our divorce from the old order with this being achieved by way of The Declaration of Independence. According to the Apostle Paul in the book of Romans, our new nation wouldn't have been justified under God's judgement as the king was the rightful ruler.

No, not according to the Apostle Paul in Romans, just according to the misinterpretations of Romans 13:1-8. Paul in no way was talking about the Roman government there because he openly opposed them and was beaten by them, put in prison by them, nearly killed by them but still ignored their laws. In the end Paul was crucified by them for continuing to break their laws. Paul was talking about a much higher power than any earthly government there, much higher indeed.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I also remember Hayek saying something to the effect how inefficient anarchy is, even less so than government. He said it becomes difficult to get large groups of people to cooperate and you don't get any type of economy of scale.

Without knowing exactly what Hayek had to say on the matter (I have never read much of him, and nothing on the subject of anarchy), I do not find his conclusions to be very compelling.

Suppose that he is correct - the existence of the State is necessary in order to optimize "large-scale cooperation" (with respect to human resources) and "economies of scale" (with respect to material resources).

This necessarily implies that State allocation/control of resources (human & material) is required in order to optimize cooperation & scaling. (If not, then what is the role of the State supposed to be?)

IOW: Socialism is best means of optimizing cooperation & scaling. Coming from the man who wrote The Road to Serfdom, this seems more than a little contradictory.

Of course, one could argue that the role of the State would be to "facilitate" rather than to "allocate & control" - but this prompts highly problematic questions of semantics & visions of blurry lines and slippery slopes.

These questions & visions are exacerbated by the fact the Hayek (based on what little I have read by & about him) approved of more than just a bare minimum of State "participation" in market & social processes.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

No, not according to the Apostle Paul in Romans, just according to the misinterpretations of Romans 13:1-8. Paul in no way was talking about the Roman government there because he openly opposed them and was beaten by them, put in prison by them, nearly killed by them but still ignored their laws. In the end Paul was crucified by them for continuing to break their laws. Paul was talking about a much higher power than any earthly government there, much higher indeed.

Good ear. But Christ also fulfilled the prophecy by blessing the same law that hounded after to kill him as a child, that persecuted His own mother as an adulterer, and would eventually capture to crucify Him. A subtle point was once made by brother Watchman Nee, a Chinese christian, who exposed a subtle difference. When breaking the law to preach the Gospel, one is speaking of the ruling Truth itself. Watchman Nee gave the example of what a sister should do if her unbelieving husband would demand that she not attend the meetings of the church. He said she should submissively bow to the authority of her husband, but then disobey him by going to the meetings anyway. Likewise, the Apostle Paul bowed to the authority of Rome submissively, but then disobeyed by preaching the gospel anyway. A similar instance happened when the protestant Catholics in Germany started rebelling against the Pope. By the encouragement of Martin Luther, they were beheaded not for being disobedient, but for being insubordinate to authority. This is the perfect way to be as an American. First off, we should realize how our natural rights are more important than our civil. As natural rights work on the level of the conscience, doing so on a bipartisan level, the civil rights work on the level of the mind, in a partisan fashion in this case involving the legal process and lawyers.

 

[XTreat]

Without knowing exactly what Hayek had to say on the matter (I have never read much of him, and nothing on the subject of anarchy), I do not find his conclusions to be very compelling.

Suppose that he is correct - the existence of the State is necessary in order to optimize "large-scale cooperation" (with respect to human resources) and "economies of scale" (with respect to material resources).

This necessarily implies that State allocation/control of resources (human & material) is required in order to optimize cooperation & scaling. (If not, then what is the role of the State supposed to be?)

IOW: Socialism is best means of optimizing cooperation & scaling. Coming from the man who wrote The Road to Serfdom, this seems more than a little contradictory.

Of course, one could argue that the role of the State would be to "facilitate" rather than to "allocate & control" - but this prompts highly problematic questions of semantics & visions of blurry lines and slippery slopes.

These questions & visions are exacerbated by the fact the Hayek (based on what little I have read by & about him) approved of more than just a bare minimum of State "participation" in market & social processes.

I have only read Hayek's Serfdom, but he says pretty clearly there that the role of government is to enforce contracts and arbitrate disputes. Thats about it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I have only read Hayek's Serfdom, but he says pretty clearly there that the role of government is to enforce contracts and arbitrate disputes. Thats about it.

My understanding is that he started out at or near the position of "contract-enforcement and dispute-arbitration only" and he gradually over time expanded the roles he was willing to allow the government to take on.

From what little I have read, in his later years, he had no particular problems with things like so-called "social safety nets" (such as Social Security & Medicare), State ownership of things like utilities (e.g., gas & electricity), and other "public goods".

 

[loveableteddybear]

California is doomed due to the Californians that think themselves fit to vote themselves gifts from the treasury, and a "social contract" that enabled the State to do such a thing.

Blaming Mexicans for it is asinine.

Not to defend some of the brash things Uncle is saying, but I just came back from LA and the majority of radio stations were in Spanish. Some even played American music, but the DJ and ads were all spanish. This doesn't bode well for a country whose Constitution and traditions are all in English.

 

[loveableteddybear]

Mass Immigration from one country to another -> Balkanization -> war

We just need to look at history if we want to find out what happens in real life when the rate of immigration exceeds the rate of cultural assimilation.

When the Huns immigrated to Rome, everything worked out just great.

And how about when the Mongols immigrated to Russia?

Or what about the Europeans settling in the Americas?

Or how about the whole world immigrating to the United States? Oh yeah, we don't know what will happen yet. Let's hope we'll buck the trends of history!

 

[loveableteddybear]

No, not according to the Apostle Paul in Romans, just according to the misinterpretations of Romans 13:1-8. Paul in no way was talking about the Roman government there because he openly opposed them and was beaten by them, put in prison by them, nearly killed by them but still ignored their laws. In the end Paul was crucified by them for continuing to break their laws. Paul was talking about a much higher power than any earthly government there, much higher indeed.

Peter was crucified upside down, Paul was beheaded according to tradition.

 

[romacox]

Many years ago my uncle crossed the border annually from Mexico to work on my grandparents ranch. He worked here for 3 months every year, returned home, and was able to support his family in Mexico for a full year off of the wages made on the ranch...a big incentive to return home.

Back then illegal immigration was not a problem. But the government made it a problem by building a fence which makes it more dangerous to cross, gives welfare to illegal aliens, created the war on drugs, created illegal wars, and illegal occupation all over the globe ....magnets that draw those who would do us harm to cross our borders. End welfare, stop the fence, end the war on drugs, and end the illegal occupation and wars.....no amnesty needed.

Amnesty is a smoke screen created by the government who is following the policies of the CFR who advocates a global governance. If immigration is a natural right, it cannot be governed by government. They cannot deport , and therefore amnesty is not in their jurisdiction either.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/04/most-illegal-immigrant-families-collect-welfare/

Legal & illegal immigrants struggle, use welfare to make up the difference http://www.examiner.com/article/legal-illegal-immigrants-struggle-use-welfare-to-make-up-the-difference The globalists (CFR) have been working toward slave labor. You see my Uncle was free to come an return home. But the new illegals do not have that choice, and are forced into slave labor. We are next.

http://www.infowars.com/cfr-backs-amnesty-for-illegals-opposes-arpaio-style-raids/

 

[otherone]

Amnesty is a smoke screen created by the government

"Amnesty" is to enslave undocumented aliens as we citizens are enslaved. More biomass to fuel the furnace of state.

 

[erowe1]

I am surprised you are asking this question. Don't you believe in homesteading?

All property starts out unowned. Even our own bodies perhaps, one could say. Then we homestead it. We claim it, we start using it, we call it ours. Other people respect our claim. We reciprocally respect their claims. We buy and sell with each other. Thus we live in peace, with lots of individuals and lots of goods and clear boundaries delineating which individuals have the right to control which goods.

I'm with you up to homesteading. But I have never understood how homesteading included the right to sell the land when you were done with it. I think exclusive rights to land should be for the sake of using it. I don't think somebody should be able to claim ownership to a bunch of unused land just so they can be the only people who hunt on it.

 

[romacox]

"Amnesty" is to enslave undocumented aliens as we citizens are enslaved. More biomass to fuel the furnace of state.

Very well said. The CFR has been very clever in tricking many Countries including the U.S.. They forced slave labor here from Mexico through NAFTA. They promised the Mexican farmers that if they sold their land to American businesses moving to Mexico, they would receive higher wages and retirement plans "like Americans have" . But it was an empty promise. When these companies found cheaper labor in China and India, they pulled out, leaving in their wake destroyed farm land and large numbers of unemployed Mexicans who poured over into our borders only to find themselves forced in to welfare and low wages which are not enough to survive on.

As you say, amnesty will enslave both U.S. and American Citizens.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm with you up to homesteading. But I have never understood how homesteading included the right to sell the land when you were done with it.

It's part of the whole package of rights that come with having an absolute property in something. You have the right to combine it with other things and thus transform it. You have the right to loan it to people, or gift it, or sell it. So if I own a gold ring, I can melt it down and make a coin. I can add it to my ring library from where people can rent out rings for special occasions. I can bequeath it to my grand-daughter to be her wedding ring. I can throw it out the window. I can donate it to Goodwill. I can do whatever I want with it. Otherwise I don't really own it.

It is the same with any good I own -- a forest, an airplane, a pineapple. I can do whatever I want with it.

I think exclusive rights to land should be for the sake of using it. I don't think somebody should be able to claim ownership to a bunch of unused land just so they can be the only people who hunt on it.

Well at some point unused property reverts back to being unowned and is available for homesteading again. If I just leave my car sitting out in the middle of the road or somewhere, eventually it's up for grabs; it's considered abandoned. Exactly when this happens and to what extent it must be being used to prevent this reversion will be determined by convention.

In my example of a very rich person buying many square miles of land and forming a country, I was envisioning him recruiting other people filling his country with them, not living all by his lonesome. If it was just him, he wouldn't need any "house rules" -- he would only be controlling himself.

 

[erowe1]

It's part of the whole package of rights that come with having an absolute property in something. You have the right to combine it with other things and thus transform it. You have the right to loan it to people, or gift it, or sell it. So if I own a gold ring, I can melt it down and make a coin. I can add it to my ring library from where people can rent out rings for special occasions. I can bequeath it to my grand-daughter to be her wedding ring. I can throw it out the window. I can donate it to Goodwill. I can do whatever I want with it. Otherwise I don't really own it.

It is the same with any good I own -- a forest, an airplane, a pineapple. I can do whatever I want with it.

Right. But how can you own land? What makes it yours? You can own what you produce and build on it. But you can't just put a fence around however much you want and say, "This is mine. No trespassing." and then go on and act like you have the right to sell it to someone else who can then say the same thing.

Well at some point unused property reverts back to being unowned and is available for homesteading again.

I agree. You can't just buy and sell it.

In my example of a very rich person buying many square miles of land and forming a country, I was envisioning him recruiting other people filling his country with them, not living all by his lonesome. If it was just him, he wouldn't need any "house rules" -- he would only be controlling himself.

But from whom would he buy it? Some government?

 

[AGRP]

It seems like theres a certain amount of racism that exists whether people recognize and admit it or not. Theres plenty of european descended canadians who are illegal and no one is complaining about them. I dont think many people would care if most people who came from mexico and asia looked like europeans.

 

[AGRP]

"Amnesty" is to enslave undocumented aliens as we citizens are enslaved. More biomass to fuel the furnace of state.

x2

This is exactly like the gay marriage debate. Who says they should be in the marriage business to begin with?

 

[sailingaway]

It seems like theres a certain amount of racism that exists whether people recognize and admit it or not. Theres plenty of european descended canadians who are illegal and no one is complaining about them. I dont think many people would care if most people who came from mexico and asia looked like europeans.

There may be racism in there, too, I've seen some ugly stuff, but it is the drain on resources that is the issue, while people are forced to pay into a welfare state and made dependent on the services provided because their money was taken to pay for them. The factor determining is whether you will pay in more than you take out to the system. Things like education level etc factor into that.

 

[otherone]

It seems like theres a certain amount of racism that exists

What is bigoted is believing that someone will take advantage of welfare programs based solely on their country of origin.

 

[AGRP]

There may be racism in there, too, I've seen some ugly stuff, but it is the drain on resources that is the issue, while people are forced to pay into a welfare state and made dependent on the services provided because their money was taken to pay for them. The factor determining is whether you will pay in more than you take out to the system. Things like education level etc factor into that.

So, youre in the group that believes the US is a giant bargain warehouse that sells or gives away goodies inside which are payed by taxation? The goodies can only be sold or given to those with a club card?

 

[sailingaway]

What is bigoted is believing that someone will take advantage of welfare programs based solely on their country of origin.

It is what is presented in statistics, I suspect, but also, if there isn't a huge concentration of illegal immigration, the impact won't be felt. I suspect Canadian illegal immigrants tend to be more in those areas.

Trying to paint concern over degraded resources people are forced to pay into and are dependent on as racism isn't a very nice thing to do, imho.