Judge Napolitano: Obama's Failure To Uphold Immigration Law Violates His Oath

[56ktarget]

Amusing since obama has deported more illegals than the amnesty-loving saint reagan.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Amusing since obama has deported more illegals than the amnesty-loving saint reagan.

And current spending on border security has doubled over last ten years (Chart is through 2011- FY 2014 has over 21,000 agents- over 18,000 of them on the southern border http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/fi...Fiscal Year Staffing Statistics 1992-2013.pdf ).

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/opini...-really-mean-when-they-say-secure-the-border/

 

[puppetmaster]

Nope, plenty of legal immigrants are on welfare.....while it is true that plenty of illegal immigrants abuse welfare, you forgot that there are plenty who want to remain in the shadows for fear of being deported and are thus therefore fearful of applying for welfare or doing anything else that would expose them....and no one can avoid paying sales taxes or gasoline taxes, not even illegal immigrants.

Yes they pay these taxes with welfare dollars. Welfare has to go and along with that the crime will skyrocket so then more police.....merry go round

 

[Ender]

They were talking about people in this country and you damn well know that. Not everyone in the world wants to live under what our founders set as ideals.

Sounds to me that you are wanting to impose your will on everyone around the world. Curious.

That's baloney.

The Declaration is talking about the innate rights of ALL PEOPLE; Jefferson is very plain in this.

 

[RonPaulMall]

That's baloney.

The Declaration is talking about the innate rights of ALL PEOPLE; Jefferson is very plain in this.

So what does that have to do with immigration? The American Revolution was not an international movement. If Jefferson were alive today his primary concern would be securing the natural rights of Americans- just like it was in 1776. Jefferson never traveled to China or Prussia to agitate or fight for revolution there. So why would he worry about Guatemalans over Americans today?

 

[56ktarget]

Lol... Have people here never taken a US history class before? Jefferson and the other founding fathers agitated for revolution not only in france but a whole host of other nations.

 

[Bryan]

Ah, and let's not forget the old libertarian saying...............NO VICTIM, NO CRIME........when an immigrant comes across the border, where's the victim being harmed by the immigrant crossing the border?

The crime is trespassing.

If someone owns land then it is clearly private property and they have the right to say who can come across it. If that person creates an organization they can say that anyone who is a member of that organization is welcome to travel on the private property and others are not welcome.

Similar principles apply in these cases. Like it or not, the land under the control of the government is private property in the sense it is owned by the government. The government can set the usage policy of that (via representation of the people). An often used policy is that the land can be freely used by individuals who are citizens or welcomed guests. Anyone else using it would be trespassing. Of course some government land is off-limits to average citizens...

There is no immoral construct for a group of people to buy some land for their common use while preventing others from using it. While this might not be how we got to where we are, the case stands. Conversely however, if you owned land on the border you should be allowed to let people cross the border onto your land but they would still not be welcomed on government land.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm well aware that you and Carly don't think much of words or what they mean (evidence below) but don't quote somebody quoting Jefferson with no link and expect me to be impressed.
Do your blasted homework for once.

Look in the mirror when you say that. Because I posted the link earlier in this thread. It's in post number 4. Tom Woods was the author of the article, by the way.

So now you can proceed to take your foot out of your mouth.

 

[Antischism]

I know if the government had not allowed newcomers to come to the country and flourish, you and I and a lot of good folks in the studio wouldn’t be here. That’s why I’m in favor of open borders. I think you have natural rights. It doesn’t matter where your mother was when you were born, you can go where you want and live where you go, and it’s none of the government’s business where you were born.

Gee, I wonder who said this just a few months ago.

Oh.

Wait, but...

[x]

Napolitano added there was “nothing unconstitutional” about Obama refusing to prosecute and deport undocumented immigrants brought into the country as children. He warned Republicans were making a political blunder by continuing to oppose efforts to reform immigration policy.

...OH.

 

[qh4dotcom]

The crime is trespassing.

If someone owns land then it is clearly private property and they have the right to say who can come across it. If that person creates an organization they can say that anyone who is a member of that organization is welcome to travel on the private property and others are not welcome.

Similar principles apply in these cases. Like it or not, the land under the control of the government is private property in the sense it is owned by the government. The government can set the usage policy of that (via representation of the people). An often used policy is that the land can be freely used by individuals who are citizens or welcomed guests. Anyone else using it would be trespassing. Of course some government land is off-limits to average citizens...

There is no immoral construct for a group of people to buy some land for their common use while preventing others from using it. While this might not be how we got to where we are, the case stands. Conversely however, if you owned land on the border you should be allowed to let people cross the border onto your land but they would still not be welcomed on government land.

Ok, I agree with the trespassing on private land.....not so much about the govt land.

An often used policy is that the land can be freely used by individuals who are citizens or welcomed guests.

Well, there are plenty of USA citizens who want these illegals to come across the border....like their family members already in the US or those that want to employ them....so then the illegals become the "welcomed guests" you talked about.

Which raises another question....Ok, some of them trespassed on private land, but they got out....now what? Now that they are no longer in private land they no longer have their God-given right to pursue happiness? Seems to me that they should face the same consequences as anyone else trespassing on private land.

and I guess I trespassed on private land when I emigrated to this country and the airplane I came in flew over private land.