Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."

[UMULAS]

.......

 

[UMULAS]

..............

 

[UMULAS]

...........

 

[UMULAS]

............

 

[LibertyEagle]

Immigrant <> illegal alien

 

[LibertyEagle]

This may be a shocker to you, but there are more Americans on welfare than immigrants.

Are you talking about illegal aliens, here, when you say "immigrant"? Because immigrants are Americans, because they entered our country legally and became citizens.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Ok, even though I'm an "anarchist" I recognize that this "fiction" government supposedly is based upon "LAW" (whatever that is...). In Yick Wo v. Hopkins somewhere back in 1886, the supreme court addressed the "rights" of an immigrant (who was still a "subject" of the emperor of China and had no intention of ever becoming a "Citizen"). The court ruled (correctly in my humble opinion) that ALL "People" have the same rights. The rights PROTECTED by the constitution belong to everyone irregardless of where they were born or where their allegiance lies. The decision in Yick Wo has never been revised or revisited since but it is often cited.

Now for a personal experience I had with someone from one of those "Constitutional Law" organizations who was to speak here in Memphis. I was available to drive this speaker from Little Rock airport to Memphis so we had 2 hours to speak. I really appreciated the knowledge this man had of the constitution and I had a different view of immigration than he did (since I don't think the feds have any legal power to restrict the movement of people). He felt the "gov" should have some say in "immigration". Since he was more versed in the constitution than I could hope to be I put the question to him about whether there is a clause granting power to control immigration and he had to admit that there is only provision for Naturalization in the constitution but not "immigration"...

Seems to me that if you are FOR the feds controlling immigration, (if you believe the constitution has "power") you need to look into amending it to get that "power" in there in the first place.

If not, show me the "delegation" of power to control immigration from the people to the "servant government"...

 

[UMULAS]

.............

 

[Confederate]

This may be a shocker to you, but there are more Americans on welfare than immigrants.

Really!?!?! There are 300 million Americans and 10-20 million illegal aliens, obviously there would be more Americans receiving benefits.

That still does not change the fact that illegal aliens are here in violation of the law. They have no respect for American sovereignty or the rule of law and should (for the most part) be deported and have to wait at the back of the line behind all those who wait years to come here legally. Yes, that includes you.

 

[mczerone]

Really!?!?! There are 300 million Americans and 10-20 million illegal aliens, obviously there would be more Americans receiving benefits.

That still does not change the fact that illegal aliens are here in violation of the law. They have no respect for American sovereignty or the rule of law and should (for the most part) be deported and have to wait at the back of the line behind all those who wait years to come here legally. Yes, that includes you.

So if it's "against the law" it's bad? I expect you to be the first in line to turn in your guns when they become "against the law". I never want to see a post about you speeding on the highways.

/I'm glad I stopped frequenting RPFs if this is the type of active poster that remains

 

[Occam's Banana]

[Illegal aliens] have no respect for American sovereignty or the rule of law and should (for the most part) be deported [...]

Hmmmm. By those standards, American citizens should (for the most part) be deported, too ...

Let's throw out *all* the moochers and parasites (whether they got here via the Mayflower or the coyote van).

Likewise, let's keep anyone who's peaceful & productive (and who just wants to leave alone and be let alone).

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes ... (which means, of course, that it will never happen) ...

 

[UMULAS]

........

 

[UMULAS]

........

 

[Ender]

Good article on immigration attitudes throughout US history:

More at the link.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/perspectives/unwanted-immigration-and-nativism-america

The Unwanted: Immigration and Nativism in America

By Peter Schrag

It’s hardly news that the complaints of our latter-day nativists and immigration restrictionists—from Sam Huntington to Rush Limbaugh, from FAIR to V-DARE—resonate with the nativist arguments of some three centuries of American history. Often, as most of us should know, the immigrants who were demeaned by one generation were the parents and grandparents of the successes of the next generation. Perhaps, not paradoxically, many of them, or their children and grandchildren, later joined those who attacked and disparaged the next arrivals, or would-be arrivals, with the same vehemence that had been leveled against them or their forebears.

Similarly, the sweeps and detentions of immigrants during the early decades of the last century were not terribly different from the heavy-handed federal, state, and local raids of recent years to round up, deport, and occasionally imprison illegal immigrants, and sometimes legal residents and U.S. citizens along with them. But it’s also well to remember that nativism, xenophobia, and racism are hardly uniquely American phenomena. What makes them significant in America is that they run counter to the nation’s founding ideals. At least since the enshrinement of Enlightenment ideas of equality and inclusiveness in the founding documents of the new nation, to be a nativist in this country was to be in conflict with its fundamental tenets.

And from the start, we’ve fought about the same questions. Who belongs here? What does the economy need? What, indeed, is an American or who is fit to be one? In 1751 Benjamin Franklin warned that Pennsylvania was becoming “a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them and will never adopt our Language or Customs any more than they can acquire our Complexion.” Later Jefferson worried about immigrants from foreign monarchies who “will infuse into American legislation their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.” Sound familiar?

American nativism and our historic ambivalence about immigration—at times vigorously seeking newcomers from abroad, at other times shutting them out and/or deporting them—is deeply entangled both in economic cycles and in the uncertainties of our vision of ourselves as a nation. A self-proclaimed “city upon a hill,” a shining model to the world, requires a certain kind of people. But what kind? Do they have to be pure Anglo-Saxons, whatever that was, which is what many reformers at the turn of the last century believed, or could it include “inferior” Southern Italians, Greeks, Slavs, Jews, or Chinese of the 1800s, the “dirty Japs” of 1942, or the Central Americans of today? Can America take the poor, the “tempest-tost,” the “wretched refuse” “yearning to breathe free” and make them a vital part of that city? If we began in perfection, how could change ever be anything but for the worse?

 

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

I think the Judge just meant that we have a natural right to live where we want. I didn't take it to mean the end of nations or borders.

Judge Napolitano doesn't deny that he is an anarchist:
Time 2:15 in video:

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Okay....... So no one even wants to ADDRESS the FACT there is nothing in the constitution granting the fed AUTHORITY to control "immigration"???

 

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

I have no issue with people coming here to work. But, I do have a problem with them wholesale becoming citizens and sucking off of the welfare state.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but do you believe that (a) the government has the right to coercively extract money from people (taxation), but (b) people (e.g. from the geographic region of Mexico) do not have the right to voluntarily accept benefits (without using any force at all) from the government? How do you figure that?

 

[erowe1]

That still does not change the fact that illegal aliens are here in violation of the law.

Could you cite the law that says this please?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Okay....... So no one even wants to ADDRESS the FACT there is nothing in the constitution granting the fed AUTHORITY to control "immigration"???

Original intent: Feds control citizenship, States control immigration.

Through a long series of Federal laws, the Federal government has taken on the task of regulating borders and immigration.

Basic history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_legislation

 

[fisharmor]

Ok, even though I'm an "anarchist" I recognize that this "fiction" government supposedly is based upon "LAW" (whatever that is...). In Yick Wo v. Hopkins somewhere back in 1886, the supreme court addressed the "rights" of an immigrant (who was still a "subject" of the emperor of China and had no intention of ever becoming a "Citizen"). The court ruled (correctly in my humble opinion) that ALL "People" have the same rights. The rights PROTECTED by the constitution belong to everyone irregardless of where they were born or where their allegiance lies. The decision in Yick Wo has never been revised or revisited since but it is often cited.

Now for a personal experience I had with someone from one of those "Constitutional Law" organizations who was to speak here in Memphis. I was available to drive this speaker from Little Rock airport to Memphis so we had 2 hours to speak. I really appreciated the knowledge this man had of the constitution and I had a different view of immigration than he did (since I don't think the feds have any legal power to restrict the movement of people). He felt the "gov" should have some say in "immigration". Since he was more versed in the constitution than I could hope to be I put the question to him about whether there is a clause granting power to control immigration and he had to admit that there is only provision for Naturalization in the constitution but not "immigration"...

Seems to me that if you are FOR the feds controlling immigration, (if you believe the constitution has "power") you need to look into amending it to get that "power" in there in the first place.

If not, show me the "delegation" of power to control immigration from the people to the "servant government"...

Great Caesar's Ghost's three ring flea circus on a pogo stick!
Someone else wants to discuss the constitutionality of the issue!!!!!

Hey CA, lemme stab in the dark here... did you become an anarchist when it became apparent that strict constitutionalists also don't give a running jump through a rolling donut what the document actually says?