Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."

[AGRP]

So have I. And your point is?

Im sure you have, but you generalized mexicans as wild and uncivilized. This topic really isnt about resources as much as it is about racism. I really dont need to say more. This thread speaks for itself.

 

[Deborah K]

A few years ago, I had a minor accident. I needed to go to a hospital. It was more painful than serious.

I had insurance, but I still had to pay $100 out of pocket. As I was being treated, I asked the nurse what happens when undocumented aliens who cannot pay and/or lack insurance come to hospitals. She said no one is turned away, but she also said that I should not be surprised if one day the hospital is shut down.

A friend of mine is a nurse in California. She said some hospitals have had to close for precisely this same reason.

I'm not "cruel" enough to tell somebody to their face, "Go. We will not treat you. No money or insurance? No treatment." But... where do we draw then line, then? This can't go on indefinitely.

Many hospitals have closed down because of it. Texas has had the most, I believe. Hence, we now have Obamacare. Stay healthy.

 

[The Freethinker]

Im sure you have, but you generalized mexicans as wild and uncivilized. This topic really isnt about resources as much as it is about racism. I really dont need to say more.

Yes, you do need to say more, because I'd like you to please show me where I "generalized Mexicans as wild and uncivilized."

 

[fisharmor]

yeah, because then you look like a hateful person and they can dismiss your real concerns.

Ok, so let's go over this yet another time.
Is your concern grounded in the US Constitution?
If so, can you explain for us how the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to control who comes into and leaves this country?
Can you please explain what section of the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to deport people currently in this country?
Can you please explain what section of the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to define people not currently holding US Citizenship papers as a group having less rights than people who do hold papers?

Can you please explain why the 10th Amendment (and an average English dictionary) don't utterly destroy all your arguments?

 

[Deborah K]

Ok, so let's go over this yet another time.
Is your concern grounded in the US Constitution?
If so, can you explain for us how the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to control who comes into and leaves this country?
Can you please explain what section of the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to deport people currently in this country?
Can you please explain what section of the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to define people not currently holding US Citizenship papers as a group having less rights than people who do hold papers?

Can you please explain why the 10th Amendment (and an average English dictionary) don't utterly destroy all your arguments?

Would you be okay with each state having its own immigration laws?

 

[erowe1]

A few years ago, I had a minor accident. I needed to go to a hospital. It was more painful than serious.

I had insurance, but I still had to pay $100 out of pocket. As I was being treated, I asked the nurse what happens when undocumented aliens who cannot pay and/or lack insurance come to hospitals. She said no one is turned away, but she also said that I should not be surprised if one day the hospital is shut down.

A friend of mine is a nurse in California. She said some hospitals have had to close for precisely this same reason.

I'm not "cruel" enough to tell somebody to their face, "Go. We will not treat you. No money or insurance? No treatment." But... where do we draw then line, then? This can't go on indefinitely.

How is the point about being undocumented aliens even relevant here? That policy about not turning anyone away applies across the board. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone has some special papers from the government. If you didn't have money or insurance, they wouldn't turn you away either.

 

[erowe1]

I am personally opposed to an amnesty for a few reasons.

1. It will encourage “bad behavior.” Foreigners who want to come here and are considering skirting US laws will think that there will be no consequence.

If I skirt an unjust law, isn't that actually "good behavior"?

 

[erowe1]

Haha.

I find it rather amusing that the same people who are all for open borders, bashed Obama for going into Pakistan to get OBL without respect for Pakistan's sovereignty.

Interesting....

Who are you talking about? Ron Paul?

And what does that comment have to do with the quote you were supposedly replying to?

 

[erowe1]

Not according to Rothbard:

I don't understand what uninvited people Rothbard (or whoever it is here who speaks for Rothbard) means. Obviously every supposedly illegal immigrant is going somewhere with someone's invitation. And whose place did Rothbard supposedly think it was to prevent that?

 

[erowe1]

I think there is an American culture that most Americans can identify with.

Maybe. But whether there is or isn't such a culture, what this culture should be if there is one, and whether such a thing should be preserved or changed, are none of the government's business.

 

[fisharmor]

Would you be okay with each state having its own immigration laws?

What I'd be OK with isn't the question. If we're shooting for what I'd be OK with, there wouldn't be states.
And the reason I think that way is because there is no provision in the US Constitution for disallowing people into the country and there is no provision for creating groups of people with less rights than others.

I've given up on the idea of constitutionalism because the most faithful defenders of that document still violate it.

 

[dinosaur]

Maybe. But whether there is or isn't such a culture, what this culture should be if there is one, and whether such a thing should be preserved or changed, are none of the government's business.

The constitution is an expression of our culture because it is based on our values. I want people to have limited governement, others don't. Who gets to decide which side is right? You can not have any form of government without a prevailing culture.

 

[erowe1]

You can not have any form of government without a prevailing culture.

Sure you can. What's the alternative?

 

[dinosaur]

Sure you can. What's the alternative?

We are in a culture war, whichever side wins will have a government that expresses their culture, and the other side won't like it. The best alternative I see is secession so that people can go join other like minded people and have the form of government that they prefer.

What do you mean by having governement without prevailing culture? What does that look like? Is there an example in history, or is it utopian? Is it anarchy?

 

[erowe1]

We are in a culture war, whichever side wins will have a government that expresses their culture, and the other side won't like it. The best alternative I see is secession so that people can go join other like minded people and have the form of government that they prefer.

And you want the government to tell you what kind of culture you're to have? You think there's any way that happens that turns out good? If you're worried about too many Americans not being Christians, or whatever, then you just have to try to persuade them to become Christians. Getting the government to tell them they have to be won't help you in any culture war.

What do you mean by you can have governement without prevailing culture? What does that look like? Is there an example in history, or is it utopian? Is it anarchy?

I don't understand this whole line of argument. If there were no prevailing culture, there would still be some kind of government, whatever it would be, whether anarchy, utopia, or anything else. It can't be the case that the multiplicities of cultures will make the government just disappear. There are lots of cultures in India, but India still has a government. It's not like you can divide up the world into governments and then divide it up into cultures and say the two ways of dividing it end up with all the same groups.

 

[dinosaur]

And you want the government to tell you what kind of culture you're to have? You think there's any way that happens that turns out good? If you're worried about too many Americans not being Christians, or whatever, then you just have to try to persuade them to become Christians. Getting the government to tell them they have to be won't help you in any culture war.



I don't understand this whole line of argument. If there were no prevailing culture, there would still be some kind of government, whatever it would be, whether anarchy, utopia, or anything else. It can't be the case that the multiplicities of cultures will make the government just disappear. There are lots of cultures in India, but India still has a government. It's not like you can divide up the world into governments and then divide it up into cultures and say the two ways of dividing it end up with all the same groups.

My point is that government will always be an expression of the prevailing culture, like it or not. That is just a fact of life. You are reading things into it, and not reading my words. I want our constitution back, period. That would be my preference.

Our govenement is becoming socialist/corporatist/fascist (pick the best label) because our culture is changing and one side is prevailing.

I was challenging your assertion that governement and culture could somehow be unrelated.

 

[erowe1]

My point is that government will always be an expression of the prevailing culture, like it or not. That is just a fact of life.

But that's clearly not true. You're saying that if there were no prevailing culture there would be no government? How do you conceive of that?

I was challenging your assertion that governement and culture could somehow be unrelated.

I didn't say they're unrelated. I just said that dictating our culture to us is none of the government's business. If you really do want a constitutional government, then you would have to agree with that, since the first amendment prohibits Congress from making any laws having anything to do with culture (i.e. religion).

ETA: Here are my words:

whether there is or isn't such a culture, what this culture should be if there is one, and whether such a thing should be preserved or changed, are none of the government's business.

If somebody disagrees with that, and they think we're in some culture war, then I'm pretty sure I'm one of the people they consider their enemy in that war.

 

[dinosaur]

But that's clearly not true. You're saying that if there were no prevailing culture there would be no government? How do you conceive of that?

There is always a culture.

I didn't say they're unrelated. I just said that dictating our culture to us is none of the government's business. If you really do want a constitutional government, then you would have to agree with that, since the first amendment prohibits Congress from making any laws having anything to do with culture (i.e. religion).

Imposing a constitution is dictating. Even a really great one like ours. Some people still won't like it, and (if there are enough of them) will change it and dictate another form of government.

 

[erowe1]

There is always a culture.

There are always many cultures. There are always many governments. The divisions of humanity into cultures and the divisions of humanity into rule of governments are not the same divisions.

Imposing a constitution is dictating. Even a really great one like ours. Some people still won't like it, and (if there are enough of them) will change it and dictate another form of government.

For the sake of argument, let's say our Constitution were really great, and let's say that it were valid for that great Constitution to dictate to a bunch of people what kind of government were to rule them, it's still not the case that the Constitution gives that government any say over those people's cultures. The Constitution enumerates the powers that government is supposed to have, and regulation of culture is not included. Moreover, the first amendment expressly prohibits it.

 

[dinosaur]

There are always many cultures. There are always many governments. The divisions of humanity into cultures and the divisions of humanity into rule of governments are not the same divisions.

Yes there are sub-cultures within a larger culture.

For the sake of argument, let's say our Constitution were really great, and let's say that it were valid for that great Constitution to dictate to a bunch of people what kind of government were to rule them, it's still not the case that the Constitution gives that government any say over those people's cultures. The Constitution enumerates the powers that government is supposed to have, and regulation of culture is not included. Moreover, the first amendment expressly prohibits it.

Yes, our constitution can trample on someone's culture. The constitution reflects our values, not everyone shares those values. Values really define a culture. Some people think that people should be told how many babies to have because they place a higher value on not putting a big footprint on the earth, than they do on self-ownership, freedom of religion, and individual rights. Who are we to dictate to them that they are wrong?

The constitution does regulate culture by enumerating powers.