Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."

[XTreat]

Fox Business Network host Stuart Varney was stunned on Monday to hear that former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano believed the federal government had no right to restrict immigration.

While discussing the latest plan for immigration reform, Napolitano doubted Republicans would “do the right thing” by expanding the freedoms of immigrants.

“If Stuart Varney & Company were a real company, lets say you were a small manufacturing company, you made widgets in northern New Jersey, you should be able to hire whoever you want,” Napolitano, the senior judicial analyst for Fox News, said. “As long as the person obeys the law and pays taxes what business is it of the federal government where they were born?”


“This is the natural law, a natural right,” he added. “Rights come from your humanity. It doesn’t matter where your mother was when you were born.”

Varney remarked that Napolitano was “way out there on this one.”

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.


Raw Story (http://s.tt/1z43t)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/28/judge-napolitano-shocks-fox-host-immigration-is-a-natural-right/

[XTreat]

For the record I agree with the judge on this and I am glad he laid it out there. Immigration will never be controlled by armies or police forces or drones or machine gun nests. The economy will always control the border. Cheap labor is a good thing and market forces will decide when cheap labor is needed.

[LibertyEagle]

Bullshit.

There is no right to become a citizen of our country. There are all kinds of people who have followed our laws who are waiting in line to become citizens and we now are going to grant amnesty to those who broke our laws?

I firmly disagree with the Judge.

[Confederate]

Love the Judge but I completely disagree with this.

There is no right to violate US sovereignty, you do not have a right to go wherever you want. Citizenship is also not a right.

[rp08orbust]

Love the Judge but I completely disagree with this.

There is no right to violate US sovereignty, you do not have a right to go wherever you want. Citizenship is also not a right.

There is no "US sovereignty", there is only individual sovereignty, and no government has any right to violate it.

[BAllen]

The judge is way off on this. The reason being, that everything else in the market is manipulated, so the economy will not be able to determine the best wages. Someone needs to show him that clip of lawyer firms that teach companies how to cheat Americans out of high tech jobs. And he needs learn about the over-inflated housing market. You can't leave labor wide open without fixing the other things in the marketplace. Plus they drain the resources of our country. With millions out of work, there is no reason at all to allow any more immigrants.

[XTreat]

Who said anything about a right to citizenship?

[CaptUSA]

The Judge is once again absolutely right. However, there is a problem.

In our current system of entitlement governance, you can't have the type of immigration the Judge speaks of without causing serious damage. If we return our system back to one based on natural law, then the Judge would be correct.

How many of us want to become "undocumented"?!

[itshappening]

There's no right to walk into another country and become a citizen.

total B.S!

[rp08orbust]

There's no right to walk into another country and become a citizen.

You have a right to walk anywhere you want without trespassing on private property.

I agree, though, that no one has a right to citizenship. But at the same time, non-citizens have the same natural rights as citizens.

[otherone]

the Judge is not talking about "citizenship".

[LibertyEagle]

As long as the welfare state exists, this should be a non-issue.

Get rid of the welfare state and birthright citizenship and THEN we will talk. Until then, NO!

[XTreat]

I don't support immigrants getting welfare handouts exactly the same amount as I support citizens getting handouts.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Cheap labor is a good thing

There are already 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country. How many more do you think we need for prosperity?

[XTreat]

For those of you who disagree what is your proposal for removing the immigrants and stopping them from coming in?

Should we borrow the money from china or the Fed to fund this?

[LibertyEagle]

I don't support immigrants getting welfare handouts exactly the same amount as I support citizens getting handouts.

They aren't "immigrants"; they are ILLEGAL ALIENS.

[XTreat]

There are already 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country. How many more do you think we need for prosperity?

You left out the part where I said the economy controls the border. If the market has a demand for unskilled labor then they will find a way to get here to provide it. I am sure at some point there is a high enough wall you can build to make it cost prohibitive, but until then the market will rule.

[fisharmor]

Bullshit.

There is no right to become a citizen of our country. There are all kinds of people who have followed our laws who are waiting in line to become citizens and we now are going to grant amnesty to those who broke our laws?
We've been over this ad nauseum. There is nothing constitutional about the laws to begin with. You need to ridiculously stretch the meaning of the word "invasion" in order to make your point. Blah blah. Please come up with a coherent argument about why the laws are valid, which doesn't simultaneously destroy any other original intent interpretation of the constitution that you actually DO believe.

However I do agree with you that they have no right to become citizens. That is not the issue. I do not care if you prevent them from voting. I do care that you have created two classes of individual rights, based on nothing more than a total "living document" interpretation of the constitution.


I firmly disagree with the Judge.
And I support him now more than ever. He can obviously read and process English sentences.

[XTreat]

They aren't "immigrants"; they are ILLEGAL ALIENS.

I support illegal aliens getting handouts exactly as much as I support citizens getting handouts.

[fisharmor]

There is no right to violate US sovereignty, you do not have a right to go wherever you want.

Then I take it you are also in favor of sobriety checkpoints?
The TSA is A-OK, because we have no right to travel?
Shall we implement similar measures at train stations and bus stops?

How about we pass a law requiring citizens to register travel outside their home city?
It's about the only thing from 1984 that I haven't seen seriously considered recently, so congratulations: the liberty movement is responsible for figuring out how to make Orwell's predictions more complete.

[cajuncocoa]

I support illegal aliens getting handouts exactly as much as I support citizens getting handouts.
I'm pretty sure the Judge would feel the same way about this, too.

[CaptUSA]

They aren't "immigrants"; they are ILLEGAL ALIENS.They are only "illegal" because the government made them illegal. When a law is unjust, do you feel an obligation to adhere to that law?

I'm with you about making sure they are not profiting from our welfare system, but they are most certainly immigrants. If it were easier to declare themselves such, most of them would do so. When the Judge speaks of natural law, he's not speaking about the law of this government, but the natural right to move freely. The natural right to provide a better life for your family. The natural right to flee poor economic conditions for better ones. This is how nature fights tyranny. Of course, governments want to control movement of people - they don't want people to have freedom.

[CT4Liberty]

How can anyone begrudge an individual for trying to make a better life for themselves and their family? If I were in Mexico, living in poverty and could cross an imaginary line and get a job working hard scrubbing toilets and be able to put my kids into school in order to better their lives, I would do it as well.

So long as they dont come in and try to take my property or infringe on my rights, all the best to them on improving their lives.

[gwax23]

As always I agree with the judge.

[otherone]

lol. Statists in Liberty clothing.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

So long as they dont come in and try to take my property or infringe on my rights, all the best to them on improving their lives.

In reality, they're sucking up tax dollars and clogging up schools, prisons and hospitals. And if given the vote by being legalized, they'll mostly be voting for statist Democrats too. Hope that is okay with you.

[CaptUSA]

lol. Statists in Liberty clothing.Liberty for me, but none for thee?

[CaptUSA]

In reality, they're sucking up tax dollars and clogging up schools, prisons and hospitals. And if given the vote by being legalized, they'll mostly be voting for statist Democrats too. Hope that is okay with you.

It's not ok with me. Hell, I don't think it's ok for any of us. But you can't defend liberty by restricting it.

[otherone]

they're sucking up tax dollars and clogging up schools, prisons and hospitals. And if given the vote by being legalized, they'll mostly be voting for statist Democrats too.

uh oh. Dropping the "they" bomb. And what are "they" having for breakfast today, o Great Karnak?

[fisharmor]

In reality, they're sucking up tax dollars and clogging up schools, prisons and hospitals. And if given the vote by being legalized, they'll mostly be voting for statist Democrats too. Hope that is okay with you.

Eliminate the schools and prisons: problem solved.
Deregulate the hospitals: problem solved.
Support a national party that doesn't treat them like subhuman vermin: problem solved.

Let's see how this logic works....
Problem A is a completely independent problem that causes far-reaching societal issues, including brainwashing children and locking up the ones whose conditioning doesn't take.
Problem B is, however, making problem A more expensive.
Therefore if we eliminate problem B, we'll all live happily ever after.

Does that sum it up?

[dinosaur]

Firmly disagree with a judge on this as well.

But it is an interesting position in that it would put an end to all wars if implimented internationally. All any bigger country would have to do when taking over a smaller country, is move a big enough "army" in there.

[CT4Liberty]

In reality, they're sucking up tax dollars and clogging up schools, prisons and hospitals. And if given the vote by being legalized, they'll mostly be voting for statist Democrats too. Hope that is okay with you.

You're talking about 2 different topics though:
1 is the right for someone to move their family and try to better themselves so long as they are not hurting anyone else.
The other is talking about our welfare state, which is something I dont support regardless of an individuals citizenship.

So if youre question is, do you support the welfare state? The answer is no, but I dont see how that has any impact on someone else moving their family to where they see the best opportunity and working hard to better themselves.

Are there leaches that move here with the sole intent of sucking the system dry? Absolutely, but the solution to that problem isnt to restrict people movement, its to stop the welfare state magnet that sucks them in. Because even without illegals, the welfare state will eventually bust itself, who knows, letting them in may just accelerate the process.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

uh oh. Dropping the "they" bomb. And what are "they" having for breakfast today, o Great Karnak?

It's 12-20 million people. How else do you propose anyone speak of them? One by one?

Yes, well, Jose spent last week with his MS-13 buddies smuggling drugs...

[CT4Liberty]

It's 12-20 million people. How else do you propose anyone speak of them? One by one?

Yes, well, Jose spent last week with his MS-13 buddies smuggling drugs...

So he got a job as a delivery man for a major pharmaceutical company? Good for Jose, I wish him the best, sounds like hes earning his place in society.

[BAllen]

You're talking about 2 different topics though:
1 is the right for someone to move their family and try to better themselves so long as they are not hurting anyone else.
The other is talking about our welfare state, which is something I dont support regardless of an individuals citizenship.

So if youre question is, do you support the welfare state? The answer is no, but I dont see how that has any impact on someone else moving their family to where they see the best opportunity and working hard to better themselves.

Are there leaches that move here with the sole intent of sucking the system dry? Absolutely, but the solution to that problem isnt to restrict people movement, its to stop the welfare state magnet that sucks them in. Because even without illegals, the welfare state will eventually bust itself, who knows, letting them in may just accelerate the process.

Have you forgotten the history of communists? They kill millions. If the funds for the welfare state run dry, they'll simply murder millions of citizens.

[UMULAS]

Anyone who has a problem with immigration (any type), please argue with me.

1_ Immigrants pay taxes
2_ Most immigrants don't get handouts
3_ Immigrants pay more taxes than most Americans


Finally, I fully support Judge Napolitano as a President for a libertarian using their brains.

[UMULAS]

Have you forgotten the history of communists? They kill millions. If the funds for the welfare state run dry, they'll simply murder millions of citizens.

I want evidence that if welfare (since minority of immigrants use it, and why not since they pay taxes) will they kill citizens.

Other than that, I smell the stormfront of the RPF's.

[CT4Liberty]

Have you forgotten the history of communists? They kill millions. If the funds for the welfare state run dry, they'll simply murder millions of citizens.

Well if we all agree that the funds WILL run dry, the question is a matter of when...lets get it over with sooner rather than later so that I may be the one to suffer and not my grandkids.

[UMULAS]

It's not ok with me. Hell, I don't think it's ok for any of us. But you can't defend liberty by restricting it.

Again I agree, abolish welfare. But most immigrants pay for welfare which is then a "right" since they are paying it.

[UMULAS]

There are already 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country. How many more do you think we need for prosperity?



Then you are a mercantilist, not a believer in the free-market.

And not all immigrants take jobs, immigrants make jobs. If you don't believe me, one day when you come and visit South Florida, I'll show you the average business men.

[thoughtomator]

The question is, do we as Americans have the right to self-determination? If so, then we also have the right to have a say in whether new people are allowed to come into the country.

Controlling immigration is a prerequisite for sovereignty, which in turn is a prerequisite for the protection of rights, which in turn is why we instituted a government in the first place as per the Declaration of Independence. It is not quite so simple in declaring immigration to be a "right", because then you undermine the basis for protection of rights in the first place.

[Darguth]

Judge is absolutely correct on this. People confuse border security and immigration control. We as a sovereign nation have the right and authority to secure our border. This would include repelling invasion, preventing espionage, or other law enforcement necessary to enforce just laws (i.e. prevent a bank fraudster from fleeing to or from our nation). However, we should not (and cannot justify morally) preventing immigration without just cause. Doing so would violate the individual rights of immigrants as well as upset the free flow of labor necessary for a successful free market (in the exactly same way a free flow of capital is necessary). "We don't want them here" or "we need to save American jobs" is not just cause under any concept of individual sovereignty and self-ownership.

[UMULAS]

The question is, do we as Americans have the right to self-determination? If so, then we also have the right to have a say in whether new people are allowed to come into the country.

Controlling immigration is a prerequisite for sovereignty, which in turn is a prerequisite for the protection of rights, which in turn is why we instituted a government in the first place as per the Declaration of Independence. It is not quite so simple in declaring immigration to be a "right", because then you undermine the basis for protection of rights in the first place.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Although Artical 1, Section 8 of Constitution allows regulation of immigration, immigrants here have the right to stay here since you don't have to be a citizen to stay or live here.

[thoughtomator]

Although Artical 1, Section 8 of Constitution allows regulation of immigration, immigrants here have the right to stay here since you don't have to be a citizen to stay or live here.

I'm fairly certain that that interpretation would not have been agreed on by the authors of the Constitution. If it allows regulation of immigration then it must necessarily have a provision to disallow an immigrant from coming here and living here, otherwise there's little point to the exercise.

[XTreat]

How can anyone begrudge an individual for trying to make a better life for themselves and their family? If I were in Mexico, living in poverty and could cross an imaginary line and get a job working hard scrubbing toilets and be able to put my kids into school in order to better their lives, I would do it as well.

So long as they dont come in and try to take my property or infringe on my rights, all the best to them on improving their lives.

Exactly.

[CaptUSA]

The question is, do we as Americans have the right to self-determination? If so, then we also have the right to have a say in whether new people are allowed to come into the country.

Controlling immigration is a prerequisite for sovereignty, which in turn is a prerequisite for the protection of rights, which in turn is why we instituted a government in the first place as per the Declaration of Independence. It is not quite so simple in declaring immigration to be a "right", because then you undermine the basis for protection of rights in the first place.Strange you should bring Jefferson into this...


"I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation. If the laws have provided no particular mode by which the right of expatriation may be exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration."

"Our ancestors... possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as, to them, shall seem most likely to promote public happiness."
"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular." All Thomas Jefferson.

His only concern was too rapid a growth of immigrants bringing with them a lust for tyranny. I share that concern. Which is why if we ended the entitlement system we have, immigration wouldn't need to be illegal and wouldn't be a problem.

[XTreat]

Eliminate the schools and prisons: problem solved.
Deregulate the hospitals: problem solved.
Support a national party that doesn't treat them like subhuman vermin: problem solved.

Let's see how this logic works....
Problem A is a completely independent problem that causes far-reaching societal issues, including brainwashing children and locking up the ones whose conditioning doesn't take.
Problem B is, however, making problem A more expensive.
Therefore if we eliminate problem B, we'll all live happily ever after.

Does that sum it up?


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to fisharmor again.

[thoughtomator]

Strange you should bring Jefferson into this...


All Thomas Jefferson.

His only concern was too rapid a growth of immigrants bringing with them a lust for tyranny. I share that concern. Which is why if we ended the entitlement system we have, immigration wouldn't need to be illegal and wouldn't be a problem.

Note he specified emigration as a right - but not immigration. You have the right to leave a place, but the place you want to go, if an established society exists there, is not required to accept you.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm pretty sure the Judge would feel the same way about this, too.

Goody, then get out your checkbook and pay for the illegal aliens. In fact today, why don't you go to your nearest emergency room and empty your bank account to pay for the illegal aliens who pop up there to get free medical care. And then, go to your nearest public school and shell out the rest of your money to fund the illegal aliens education.

[LibertyEagle]

Even Ron Paul is NOT for open borders. Most assuredly not while we have the welfare system we have.

If you guys want to pay for the illegal aliens, go for it. But, get your hand out of my pocket.

[LibertyEagle]

Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration. If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad. But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.

In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

read the rest... (http://www.humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/)

[CaptUSA]

Note he specified emigration as a right - but not immigration. You have the right to leave a place, but the place you want to go, if an established society exists there, is not required to accept you.How far down this hole do you want to go before you realize you don't understand Jefferson's position on this matter???

"Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that for admission to certain offices of important trust a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?"

"It [has] been the wise policy of these states to extend the protection of their laws to all those who should settle among them of whatever nation or religion they might be and to admit them to a participation of the benefits of civil and religious freedom, and... the benevolence of this practice as well as its salutary effects [has] rendered it worthy of being continued in future times."

"America is now, I think, the only country of tranquility and should be the asylum of all those who wish to avoid the scenes which have crushed our friends in [other lands]."

"[We wish] but to consecrate a sanctuary for those whom the misrule of Europe may compel to seek happiness in other climes. This refuge, once known, will produce reaction on the happiness even of those who remain there by warning their task-masters that when the evils of Egyptian oppression become heavier than those of the abandonment of country, another Canaan is open where their subjects will be received as brothers and secured against like oppressions by a participation in the right of self-government." Again, all Jefferson.

Again, Jefferson cautioned about too rapid a growth, but it was never a question in his mind that this was a natural right and that this nation would be the sole nation on the planet that would not interfere with natural rights.

We would not even be having this argument if it was not for the welfare state. That is where the problem lies and that is where we should direct our attention.

[supermario21]

Dismantling the welfare state isn't going to happen. If we lived in Judge Nap's America I would be fine with it because there would be no welfare to go around, but they are leeches to the system and will keep voting for Democrats to boot. We're on a slippery slope. Let's keep caving into these fools. First, it will be citizenship. Then, when they realize that doesn't work, let's promise to keep Obamacare so they can get cheap health care...All while the state keeps growing and growing.

[LibertyEagle]

How far down this hole do you want to go before you realize you don't understand Jefferson's position on this matter???

Did you even read this?
http://www.humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

Apparently not.

[CaptUSA]

LE, be careful about how you're reading Jefferson... It was not a question of should immigration occur, it was a concern about the speed.

[LibertyEagle]

LE, be careful about how you're reading Jefferson... It was not a question of should immigration occur, it was a concern about the speed.

Of course. No one here is against orderly immigration where people who WANT TO BECOME AMERICANS can be assimilated. That is NOT what we have now. Nor is it what many here in this thread are advocating.

[sailingaway]

We have seen how little power we have to end the welfare state. I think it is disingenuous to suggest we start with that when the abuse of the system those who are forced to depend on because their money is stripped from them by law is ongoing and real.

Yes, I agree it is the welfare system, but that exists, and the movement is to be all more 'inclusive' in letting those who didn't pay in into the various programs, after all, the elite don't use them, govt even has a pension system separate from Social Security.

It reminds me of when I worked at a company that wanted a program to give incentives for carpooling. All sorts of prizes were thought up by those who weren't going to pay for them, but the CEO went with ENTRIES to a sweepstakes. Then he could cap the cost of the prize and however many entries there were was no skin off the company's nose, and no extra cost. So he could be outright lavish with awarding ENTRIES.

[CT4Liberty]

Of course. No one here is against orderly immigration where people who WANT TO BECOME AMERICANS can be assimilated. That is NOT what we have now. Nor is it what many here in this thread are advocating.

I see a big difference between immigration and citizenship... Article 1 Section 8 talks about naturalization (citizenship) but nowhere is the word immigration mentioned. People should be able to freely move through our country, so long as they obey the laws of the State they are in and any Federal laws.

If they want to "become Americans" then there is a process for that, which not everyone will be allowed to become.

[CaptUSA]

Of course. No one here is against orderly immigration where people who WANT TO BECOME AMERICANS can be assimilated. That is NOT what we have now. Nor is it what many here in this thread are advocating.Perhaps, this is the most instructive quote:

"If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements." - TJ
Jefferson most certainly was in favor of immigration, but was concerned that some wanted to actively encourage more to come. This is the welfare state. It is encouraging people to come by giving them favors when they arrive. Jefferson, and all of us, oppose this. If you end this encouragement, you end the problem.

You don't need to further restrict the liberty of people. Freedom solves problems. Restrictions on freedom causes problems.


So to sum up Jefferson's real thoughts on the matter... He didn't want the government to restrict what he saw as a natural right, but he also cautioned against actively promoting more immigration unnaturally. This is almost exactly what the Judge is saying.

[CT4Liberty]

You don't need to further restrict the liberty of people. Freedom solves problems. Restrictions on freedom causes problems.

So very true, which is why legislators love to do what they do... they write a law to fix a problem they created through unintended (I'll be generous and assume it was unintended) consequences of a previous law... rinse and repeat. Then they all high five each other and have a giant circle jerk of what great humanitarians they are because they "fixed" the problem.

[Origanalist]

Dismantling the welfare state isn't going to happen. If we lived in Judge Nap's America I would be fine with it because there would be no welfare to go around, but they are leeches to the system and will keep voting for Democrats to boot. We're on a slippery slope. Let's keep caving into these fools. First, it will be citizenship. Then, when they realize that doesn't work, let's promise to keep Obamacare so they can get cheap health care...All while the state keeps growing and growing.

And there is reality, thank you.

[fr33]

Rights exist regardless if a government recognize them or not.

[KingNothing]

Bullshit.

There is no right to become a citizen of our country. There are all kinds of people who have followed our laws who are waiting in line to become citizens and we now are going to grant amnesty to those who broke our laws?

I firmly disagree with the Judge.


There is no right to become a citizen? Says who? Why are we free to move where we want, worship as we want, speak as we want, and defend ourselves.... but not free to live where we want without some arbitrary documentation issued by an arbitrary group of people?

The Judge is exactly right. His stance is the principled and consistent one.

[KingNothing]

[B]Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration.


Any many owned slaves. So what? They were just men. Intelligent though they may have been, they were still just men, complete with all the failings of man. And the justification that Jefferson gave was totally utilitarian - and not the least bit principled.

[erowe1]

There are already 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country. How many more do you think we need for prosperity?

If we just legalized immigration, there would be zero illegal immigrants.

I want there to be zero illegal immigrants. Don't you?

Or is it really immigrants in general, and not just illegal ones, that you're concerned about?

[familydog]

How dare the Judge suggest that people outside of our imaginary lines on a map have natural rights? Doesn't he realize that only Amuricans have the right to move?

[KingNothing]

As long as the welfare state exists, this should be a non-issue.

Get rid of the welfare state and birthright citizenship and THEN we will talk. Until then, NO!


How about we get rid of citizenship, in general.

[KingNothing]

How dare the Judge suggest that people outside of our imaginary lines on a map have natural rights? Doesn't he realize that only Amuricans have the right to move?



AMERICA, EFFF YEAH!

[Carehn]

Bullshit.

There is no right to become a citizen of our country. There are all kinds of people who have followed our laws who are waiting in line to become citizens and we now are going to grant amnesty to those who broke our laws?

I firmly disagree with the Judge.

It may not be a right to become part of our club, but it is a natural right to move your body without concern for imaginary lines.

[jllundqu]

There is no right to become a citizen? Says who? Why are we free to move where we want, worship as we want, speak as we want, and defend ourselves.... but not free to live where we want without some arbitrary documentation issued by an arbitrary group of people?

The Judge is exactly right. His stance is the principled and consistent one.

Technically he is right, but only in theory... not in reality. Reality is we live in a nation. A nation has borders. The open-borders crowd always buckles when you ask them how to keep criminals out and keep legal immigration in check. In a truly free and sovereign world, yes, I would like to simply walk anywhere and do anything I wanted, regardless of borders and nation states... that ain't never gonna happen y'all!

I wish I lived in The Judge's world, and Ron Paul's world for that matter, but alas... we live in this one. Granting citizenship to 12 million illlegals (whom all data shows would vote overwhelmingly Democrat) would end the two party system forever. We would have a total socialist/communist statist's wet dream.

[sailingaway]

And there is reality, thank you.

The huge problem they won't discuss is the chain family migration from it. That is what 'broke' our system, the 1983 amnesty STILL has family members using preference visas making it almost impossible to enter for those not wealthy from the countries where the majority of people got amnesty. What they should do is totally redo the system and let in those let in with their entire nuclear family (mom, dad, kids) but it is their choice to do it or not, after that, their family members would have to apply separately. What happens is the poorest self select to root themselves up precisely BECAUSE the govt paid education and health care etc makes it worth it, in an unending stream. the incentives are all wrong.

But it is one thing to legalize those here a long time who have been good neighbors and have family here. That is still rewarding bad behavior, but for those here a long time (and I think it should be drafted like that) it is really cruel to send them back. That does not apply to their extended families not here, and it is NOT cruel imho to not reward them with voting. I think a separate, unconvertible, permanent residency for those people should be considered. But no chain migration should stem from it, because that is many times the count of the number of people already here. I don't trust those in congress to actually do it, I expect them to keep the parts of law that says once you are here legally you can change status etc, and to pretend the existing law of change from green cards to citizenship doesn't exist in their discussion. That is what happened last time -- it was downright dishonest with the American people.

[Carehn]

Dismantling the welfare state isn't going to happen. If we lived in Judge Nap's America I would be fine with it because there would be no welfare to go around, but they are leeches to the system and will keep voting for Democrats to boot. We're on a slippery slope. Let's keep caving into these fools. First, it will be citizenship. Then, when they realize that doesn't work, let's promise to keep Obamacare so they can get cheap health care...All while the state keeps growing and growing.


Have you ever had a mosquito bit you? Next time you do and catch it flex your muscles so it cant escape. It will just get bigger and bigger till it POPS. Think of the state like that mosquito. Maybe if it just keeps getting bigger and bigger one day it will pop. It will leave us with a bad case of lyme disease, but at least it got what was coming to it.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

How dare the Judge suggest that people outside of our imaginary lines on a map have natural rights? Doesn't he realize that only Amuricans have the right to move?

Only 'Merkins have God-given natural rights, because God is an American (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S48uD-RFWBs)

[KingNothing]

Technically he is right, but only in theory... not in reality.


You do realize that this is basically what everyone outside of Libertarians says about most liberty-oriented ideals, right? "It sounds good, but we NEED government to do such and such."

I don't care much about "keeping criminals out" because I have absolutely no faith that the current system works any better in that regard than a totally borderless system would. As far as "immigrants voting Democrat" I don't particularly care for that line of thinking either. If the Republicans stop being a party built on fear and bigotry and become a party that embraces Liberty on all fronts, they may actually attract new voters.

[LibertyEagle]

lol. Statists in Liberty clothing.

Really? Ok, I'll play. That would make you a globalist in Liberty clothing; as you are doing their bidding, whether you realize it or not.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Kudos to the Judge for out-libertarian-ing Ron on this issue--although Ron actually wasn't that bad--always cautioning against walls and the police state which are actually being built to keep us in and oppress us further.

If Judge Nap will challenge Rand for the Republican nomination, I'll have a reason to attend my county central committee meetings and keep my voting status current:

http://revolutionpac.com/articles/draft-judge-napolitano-for-president
(http://revolutionpac.com/articles/draft-judge-napolitano-for-president)

[KingNothing]

Really? Ok, I'll play. That would make you a globalist in Liberty clothing; as you are doing their bidding, whether you realize it or not.


LOL!

Right.

[LibertyEagle]

How about we get rid of citizenship, in general.

Because it would be stupid, that's why.

Look, we cannot change how all the people in the world want to live or what kind of government, if any, that they want to have. The best we can do right now is to carve out a piece of the world and live by the rules we want in that small piece. That is what a country should be about and borders separate it from the rest of the world.

It is la la land to believe that there aren't people in this world, and yes, outside our own government, who want the entire damn world under their control and they will stop at nothing to make it so. These people want borders to disappear. That is what all the so-called free trade agreements are about and all the "unions"... African Union, European Union, etc. There are a lot of them and they are just a precursor to the globalists' wet dream of world government.

[LibertyEagle]

LOL!

Right.

Yes. Right! And the sad thing is that you do not even realize it.

[sailingaway]

How dare the Judge suggest that people outside of our imaginary lines on a map have natural rights? Doesn't he realize that only Amuricans have the right to move?


this ignores that people have sums stripped from them without their agreement by govt to pay for things like schools, medical and retirement funds which are over burdened so the quality is terrible. The amounts are too great for the middle class in the areas worst hit by illegal immigration to afford the private schools (about $30,000 per child per year in Los Angeles for a decent one, right now.) So they need the quality of what they are being forced to pay for to stay as good as possible. I DO believe in sovereignty and I do believe a govt has a duty to look out for its citizens above anyone else. How else would you ever have local self determination of government? Note I am speaking of a government, not anarchy, because I do believe in a small government.

Regardless of the philosophical underpinning, I don't think the government of this country can legitimately force its citizens to pay for services and then let unlimited poor people from elsewhere use them. Those who get more in benefits then they pay in do drain what is available, and language is an additional cost. Language is also now cut in most schools until high school, in Los Angeles and then only Spanish is available, typically. It is very difficult to become fluent in ANY language with that, so only kids of those who speak English do NOT come out of the school system bilingual. That is a major market disadvantage, right there.

you can't have open borders and a welfare state, and there is no plan on the table to end the welfare state, to the contrary.

This is one of the topics there has always been a split on here, however, abortion being the other. Some people do believe in sovereignty and the ability of a country to set the rules of entry, some don't. Some believe life begins at conception, some don't. I have never seen anyone convinced of the opposing position.

[LibertyEagle]

It may not be a right to become part of our club, but it is a natural right to move your body without concern for imaginary lines.

You believe national sovereignty is imaginary?

[jllundqu]

You do realize that this is basically what everyone outside of Libertarians says about most liberty-oriented ideals, right? "It sounds good, but we NEED government to do such and such."

I don't care much about "keeping criminals out" because I have absolutely no faith that the current system works any better in that regard than a totally borderless system would. As far as "immigrants voting Democrat" I don't particularly care for that line of thinking either. If the Republicans stop being a party built on fear and bigotry and become a party that embraces Liberty on all fronts, they may actually attract new voters.


So in your world view... we have complete and total open borders, no nation states at all, and all will just be peachy? And you also expect other nations to dissolve their borders as well right? If we don't have a border, we no longer have a country... but I guess from a true Libertarian perspective that is what you would advocate. I am not a libertarian... I am a minarchist... I like having a country with a founding document... and i like defending my country from those would would seek to dissolve it. Globalists around the world are smiling at the fact that Ron Paul supporters like you are playing right into their plans to become borderless and further integrate nations into giant conglomerate corporate states ala the EU and North American Union. No thanks... I like my country with imaginary lines.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration. -theconstitution.org

[fisharmor]

Controlling immigration is a prerequisite for sovereignty, which in turn is a prerequisite for the protection of rights, which in turn is why we instituted a government in the first place as per the Declaration of Independence. It is not quite so simple in declaring immigration to be a "right", because then you undermine the basis for protection of rights in the first place.

What right is being protected by disallowing immigration?
What right is being destroyed by allowing immigration?
Does the ninth amendment not exist?

[fisharmor]

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

Page 1 dealt with this. Nobody is advocating that they be able to vote the second their clothes dry out.

[CaptUSA]

you can't have open borders and a welfare state, and there is no plan on the table to end the welfare state, to the contrary.

I agree with this entirely. I think the Judge would agree with you as well. But when you are talking about natural rights, he was right on point. The consistent position here is to dismantle the welfare state to stop luring people in, and then allow anyone who wants to come, to come. If you don't do it in this order, you are asking for destruction. I believe this position is held by both Ron Paul and the Judge.

[familydog]

The resounding lack of empathy for fellow human beings here is quite unnerving.

I feel very sad for those who will use violence and domination to uphold the archaic concept of a "nation."

[LibertyEagle]

The resounding lack of empathy for fellow human beings here is quite unnerving.

I feel very sad for those who will use violence and domination to uphold the archaic concept of a "nation."

Spoken like a true world government aficionado.

Sorry, but none for me.

[jllundqu]

The resounding lack of empathy for fellow human beings here is quite unnerving.

I feel very sad for those who will use violence and domination to uphold the archaic concept of a "nation."

It is not a lack of empathy... it is a matter of property rights. The Judge is spot on in terms of all human beings have natural rights. Put that into the context of a massive welfare state and it gets complicated. If I am forced to pay thru taxation etc for the endless masses that come here illegally, of course I don't want an open border! That would lead to ruin and a complete destruction of my property rights! You can't simultaneously have millions of people flooding the country while an oppressive government says "Oh by the way, we are going to steal from the rest of you to pay for all of them"

If we lived in a world where my property rights were intact and we had a minarchist form of government, you could erase the border, no issues!

[KingNothing]

The resounding lack of empathy for fellow human beings here is quite unnerving.

I feel very sad for those who will use violence and domination to uphold the archaic concept of a "nation."

I totally agree with you. I know that I don't have the heart to actually turn anyone away.

[KingNothing]

Spoken like a true world government aficionado.

Sorry, but none for me.

World Government Aficionado's are concerned with individuals and basic human freedom? News to me.

You do realize that just because one entity that may be "bad" holds a belief, that does not necessarily make the belief "bad," don't you?



"You love your wife? Why, you know that Hitler loved his too, don't you, you Nazi sympathizer!"

[Carehn]

You believe national sovereignty is imaginary?

Yep, I don't believe the guns are or the welfare. but the idea of a nation is made up. If I was a mexican I would jump the border too. To you think the animal life on the border give a rats ass what site they are on? Why should humans? Its just land.

[jllundqu]

Yep, I don't believe the guns are or the welfare. but the idea of a nation is made up. If I was a mexican I would jump the border too. To you think the animal life on the border give a rats ass what site they are on? Why should humans? Its just land.

Wow... so now we are simply dumb animals. Okie dokie!

[familydog]

It is not a lack of empathy... it is a matter of property rights. The Judge is spot on in terms of all human beings have natural rights. Put that into the context of a massive welfare state and it gets complicated. If I am forced to pay thru taxation etc for the endless masses that come here illegally, of course I don't want an open border! That would lead to ruin and a complete destruction of my property rights! You can't simultaneously have millions of people flooding the country while an oppressive government says "Oh by the way, we are going to steal from the rest of you to pay for all of them"

If we lived in a world where my property rights were intact and we had a minarchist form of government, you could erase the border, no issues!

I understand your argument. However...

-They didn't choose the circumstances of their birth.
-They didn't choose to exist in a "War on Drugs" which destabilized their economy, destroyed millions of families and murdered millions more.
-They didn't choose a government that subsidizes corporate agriculture at the expense of small farmers.
-They didn't choose to live in one of the most dangerous places in the world, under a government that will murder them for having guns to protect themselves.
-Finally, they didn't choose to be so impoverished by government that they need to use government welfare services afforded to all Amuricans.

Look, the problems are not the victims of government violence.

The problem is government.

[supermario21]

Looks like the national immigration debate where the pro-amnesty crowd cries racism has made it to even these forums...sad to see, I'm sure many of us came from immigrant families within the last few generations. The problem isn't now, but in a few years. You know who's going to benefit the most from the proposed Medicaid expansion in Obamacare, or the subsidies for those that don't have it? Yep-the freshly amnestied illegals. Gee, I wonder who they vote for when candidate A is on the ballot (hopefully Rand Paul) saying he wants to dismantle Obamacare and reform entitlements and candidate B is saying how we need to preserve the safety net because Americans "take care of everyone." If you thought the environment was bad now, try when you've got millions who have brand new voting rights and are far more pro-big government than any of you could ever think. Pick 1, entitlements/welfare, or amnesty, but both are destructive to this country and will further push us to 1-world European/UN government.

[QuickZ06]

Americans telling other immigrants they are not welcome unless the king of the land (government) allows it, IRONY!

[jllundqu]

I understand your argument. However...

-They didn't choose the circumstances of their birth.
-They didn't choose to exist in a "War on Drugs" which destabilized their economy, destroyed millions of families and murdered millions more.
-They didn't choose a government that subsidizes corporate agriculture at the expense of small farmers.
-They didn't choose to live in one of the most dangerous places in the world, under a government that will murder them for having guns to protect themselves.
-Finally, they didn't choose to be so impoverished by government that they need to use government welfare services afforded to all Amuricans.

Look, the problems are not the victims of government violence.

The problem is government.

I agree with everything you just said!

--Just like I didn't choose to live in a welfare state
--I didn't choose to persecute the war on drugs
--I didn't vote to elect frauds for so called "leaders"
--It is not my problem that their country is a 3rd world narco state (admittedly a US created one)... I don't want that spilling into my back yard (Im in Arizona).

The problem IS government, as you say, but you are advocating more government force against me to pay for mexico's failed state!

[CaptUSA]

Pretty slick trick for the State, eh?

You know, get people all hooked on special favors by taking money from other people. Then, people in foreign lands want to get in on those favors and it attracts them. Then, the people whose money was being stolen want MORE government to keep those other people out.

If that doesn't work well enough, let's make certain plants illegal that people want. Then, we'll fight with guns anyone who tries to bring those plants over the border. When crimes increase and things start to crumble, the people whose rights to those plants were being infringed, want MORE government to build higher walls and use more violence and tougher restrictions to prevent the chaos.

Damn, it feels good to be a statist. It's so easy.

Government causes problems -> people want MORE government to solve them!

[jllundqu]

http://demotivators.despair.com/demotivational/governmentdemotivator.jpg
Pretty slick trick for the State, eh?

You know, get people all hooked on special favors by taking money from other people. Then, people in foreign lands want to get in on those favors and it attracts them. Then, the people whose money was being stolen want MORE government to keep those other people out.

If that doesn't work well enough, let's make certain plants illegal that people want. Then, we'll fight with guns anyone who tries to bring those plants over the border. When crimes increase and things start to crumble, the people whose rights to those plants were being infringed, want MORE government to build higher walls and use more violence and tougher restrictions to prevent the chaos.

Damn, it feels good to be a statist. It's so easy.

Government causes problems -> people want MORE government to solve them!

[jclay2]

As long as the welfare state exists, this should be a non-issue.

Get rid of the welfare state and birthright citizenship and THEN we will talk. Until then, NO!

Absolutely agree with this. As long as we are borrowing like its going out of style, we need to be firmly against any advances for amnesty and lax immigration.

[CaptUSA]

Absolutely agree with this. As long as we are borrowing like its going out of style, we need to be firmly against any advances for amnesty and lax immigration.Trust me, I fully understand the order in which things need to occur, but I find it incredibly difficult to argue for liberty while arguing against it. I will not allow the failures of this government to drive me into their arms asking for MORE government. It won't happen.

[otherone]

Spoken like a true world government aficionado.

Sorry, but none for me.

ok. Let's play.
America..."land of the free". People want to come here because they want to be "free". It's a nice idea. Why America is supposed to be so frickin' sweet is that WE as an OF FOR and BY state acknowledge that ALL people have u-n-a-l-i-e-n-a-b-l-e Rights, and that this state is in existence fundamentally to protect those Rights. Saying "citizens only" for those unalienable Rights means the STATE NOW CONTROLS who has unalienable Rights, as it's the State that grants citizenship. The state does NOT create Rights. As far as "globalism" is concerned, America is supposed to be the frickin' city on the hill....
(this is a Liberty Movement, right?)

[jllundqu]

Trust me, I fully understand the order in which things need to occur, but I find it incredibly difficult to argue for liberty while arguing against it. I will not allow the failures of this government to drive me into their arms asking for MORE government. It won't happen.

So what would be your solution? Government cannot be completely removed from the equation. If you remove government from one part of the equation (lets say just dissolve the border and let everyone in) then one would have to remove government from the other parts of the equation (welfare, taxation, etc.). It's an impossible situation.. and like you said, created that way intentionally by statists. How does one REALISTICALLY solve the problem?

[The Goat]

+1, very well stated.


ok. Let's play.
America..."land of the free". People want to come here because they want to be "free". It's a nice idea. Why America is supposed to be so frickin' sweet is that WE as an OF FOR and BY state acknowledge that ALL people have u-n-a-l-i-e-n-a-b-l-e Rights, and that this state is in existence fundamentally to protect those Rights. Saying "citizens only" for those unalienable Rights means the STATE NOW CONTROLS who has unalienable Rights, as it's the State that grants citizenship. The state does NOT create Rights. As far as "globalism" is concerned, America is supposed to be the frickin' city on the hill....
(this is a Liberty Movement, right?)

[helmuth_hubener]

You have a right to walk anywhere you want without trespassing on private property. In a free society, everywhere is private property. So no, you have no right to walk anywhere except on property which you own. In a free society like this, immigration goes from a macro problem to a micro one -- each person must decide to whom he wishes to grant the privilege of occupying his property.

[presence]

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

[Romulus]

You can not legalize a natural right, says the Judge.

[Dick Chaney]

wow... judge.

[familydog]

I agree with everything you just said!

--Just like I didn't choose to live in a welfare state
--I didn't choose to persecute the war on drugs
--I didn't vote to elect frauds for so called "leaders"
--It is not my problem that their country is a 3rd world narco state (admittedly a US created one)... I don't want that spilling into my back yard (Im in Arizona).

The problem IS government, as you say, but you are advocating more government force against me to pay for mexico's failed state!

Actually, I'm advocating the dissolution of all welfare. What I am not advocating for is holding a gun to someone's head in order to stop them from crossing an imaginary line.

[otherone]

Actually, I'm advocating the dissolution of all welfare. What I am not advocating for is holding a gun to someone's head in order to stop them from crossing an imaginary line.

I believe step one is starving the federal government.

[Ender]

Bullshit.

There is no right to become a citizen of our country. There are all kinds of people who have followed our laws who are waiting in line to become citizens and we now are going to grant amnesty to those who broke our laws?

I firmly disagree with the Judge.

I say bullshit to your statement- the Judge is spot-on.

If you believe in the Declaration of Independence, then you believe in the natural rights that come with being human. Get rid of entitlements and let people work and support free enterprise. Then EVERYONE prospers.

This country was never more prosperous than when immigration was easy.

[CaptUSA]

So what would be your solution? Government cannot be completely removed from the equation. If you remove government from one part of the equation (lets say just dissolve the border and let everyone in) then one would have to remove government from the other parts of the equation (welfare, taxation, etc.). It's an impossible situation.. and like you said, created that way intentionally by statists. How does one REALISTICALLY solve the problem?Really, it's either a dismantling of the welfare state or a collapse of the welfare state. There is no other solution. But I will NOT give the government more power to restrict the liberty of people. I will NOT. They don't get to do this. They don't get to receive more power to "fix" a problem they created. They can either dismantle the welfare state or allow it to collapse.

[Ender]

In a free society, everywhere is private property. So no, you have no right to walk anywhere except on property which you own. In a free society like this, immigration goes from a macro problem to a micro one -- each person must decide to whom he wishes to grant the privilege of occupying his property.

Really.

So the English settlers were trespassing on private Indian property?

[Ender]

ok. Let's play.
America..."land of the free". People want to come here because they want to be "free". It's a nice idea. Why America is supposed to be so frickin' sweet is that WE as an OF FOR and BY state acknowledge that ALL people have u-n-a-l-i-e-n-a-b-l-e Rights, and that this state is in existence fundamentally to protect those Rights. Saying "citizens only" for those unalienable Rights means the STATE NOW CONTROLS who has unalienable Rights, as it's the State that grants citizenship. The state does NOT create Rights. As far as "globalism" is concerned, America is supposed to be the frickin' city on the hill....
(this is a Liberty Movement, right?)

Well said.

[sailingaway]

Really.

So the English settlers were trespassing on private Indian property?

If they had that system of laws, yes, but they had an open borders approach. See how that worked out for them...

--
LOL! I shouldn't get into this. I was looking to see if anyone addressed my points and no one did. They are my basis for what I believe, though, and all the rest, to me, doesn't address the situation we are actually in.

[Ender]

If they had that system of laws, yes, but they had an open borders approach. See how that worked out for them...

The "system of laws" you are advocating are antithesis to freedom.

[sailingaway]

The "system of laws" you are advocating are antithesis to freedom.

I'm not in the all land is private property camp, I'm in the sovereign nation camp. Were there no forced payments for school and medical and retirement and limited funds already insufficient for the burden on those systems, I would argue and vote as policy to my nation to have very, very welcoming immigration. However, where those things exist and have real impacts on those using, for example, a school system for their kids after years and years of working and paying for the schools so they would be there when needed, I don't think it is a legitimate use of government to swamp those systems with unlimited amounts of people who take out more in benefits than they pay in to those systems.

It is the existence of the use of force in the first instance that created the situation, but now here we are.

[otherone]

--
They are my basis for what I believe, though, and all the rest, to me, doesn't address the situation we are actually in.

Everything boils down to this question:
Who is sovereign: The state, or the individual?

[Carehn]

Wow... so now we are simply dumb animals. Okie dokie!

Yes. that's exactly what I said.

[Ender]

I'm not in the all land is private property camp, I'm in the sovereign nation camp. Were there no forced payments for school and medical and retirement and limited funds already insufficient for the burden on those systems, I would argue and vote as policy to my nation to have very, very welcoming immigration. However, where those things exist and have real impacts on those using, for example, a school system for their kids after years and years of working and paying for the schools so they would be there when needed, I don't think it is a legitimate use of government to swamp those systems with unlimited amounts of people who take out more in benefits than they pay in to those systems.

It is the existence of the use of force in the first instance that created the situation, but now here we are.

I repeat my earlier remark:

If you believe in the Declaration of Independence, then you believe in the natural rights that come with being human. Get rid of entitlements and let people work and support free enterprise. Then EVERYONE prospers.

This country was never more prosperous than when immigration was easy.

[sailingaway]

Everything boils down to this question:
Who is sovereign: The state, or the individual?


No, that is how you start your decision tree. I think individuals formed nationstates to defend their rights to create their own system of governance, and they have a right, if they are dumb enough, to want socialism, but when the state forces people to give up the fruit of their labor to pay for it the state has the obligation to manage it with integrity to deliver the promised services. I don't like socialism, but I do believe in self determination through local rule, and sovereignty, to me, is necessary to that, or how do you create your own way of life and protect it?

I am not an anarchist, as I said.

[sailingaway]

I repeat my earlier remark:

If you believe in the Declaration of Independence, then you believe in the natural rights that come with being human. Get rid of entitlements and let people work and support free enterprise. Then EVERYONE prospers.

This country was never more prosperous than when immigration was easy.

And it didn't have public schools mandated by the federal govt etc etc. As I said the issues are two, sovereignty and what is it moral to get rid of first? I think you have to ween off the welfare state because people who have already paid in have been rendered dependent. Meanwhile impacts on the systems is a very real point to consider.

I agree with your perfect world, on this point, but government is continually INCREASING the welfare state, not getting rid of it, and that is our reality.

[Anti-Neocon]

Reasons like this are why I don't identify as a libertarian.

[otherone]

I don't like socialism, but I do believe in self determination through local rule, and sovereignty, to me, is necessary to that, or how do you create your own way of life and protect it?

I am not an anarchist, as I said.

Socialism violates those Rights that you say your formed government was created to protect. I'm not an anarchist either. It's not the governments job to protect your "way of life", it would have to violate yours or someone elses Rights in order to do so. It's government's job to protect your Rights.

[Ender]

And it didn't have public schools mandated by the federal govt etc etc. As I said the issues are two, sovereignty and what is it moral to get rid of first? I think you have to ween off the welfare state because people who have already paid in have been rendered dependent. Meanwhile impacts on the systems is a very real point to consider.

I agree with your perfect world, on this point, but government is continually INCREASING the welfare state, not getting rid of it, and that is our reality.

So- your solution is more government? More government to solve too much government?

Time to understand what real freedom is, my friend; and it has nothing to do with a "perfect world" scenario.

[otherone]

Time to understand what real freedom is, my friend; and it has nothing to do with a "perfect world" scenario.

Maybe we can ask the mods for a "Liberty" subforum? :D

[Ender]

Maybe we can ask the mods for a "Liberty" subforum? :D

+1 ;)

[AuH20]

Reasons like this are why I don't identify as a libertarian.

On paper, Libertarians are right on this subject. When you actually start practicing such policies in the physical realm with with real human bodies, they are extremely mistaken.

[LibertyEagle]

So- your solution is more government? More government to solve too much government?

Time to understand what real freedom is, my friend; and it has nothing to do with a "perfect world" scenario.

Be sure and tell Ron Paul too, why don't you? Because he is a strong advocate of national sovereignty and is totally against any semblance of open borders while the welfare state is in place.

[LibertyEagle]

Maybe we can ask the mods for a "Liberty" subforum? :D

There is already one for political philosophies. That is where the anarchist stuff goes. Knock yourself out.

[XTreat]

Goody, then get out your checkbook and pay for the illegal aliens. In fact today, why don't you go to your nearest emergency room and empty your bank account to pay for the illegal aliens who pop up there to get free medical care. And then, go to your nearest public school and shell out the rest of your money to fund the illegal aliens education.

Immigrants pay for their own public schooling. Do they not pay property tax? Do they not pay sales tax? Do they not pay excise tax?

AS far as hospitals go, again your problem seems to be with government regulation of the market, not immigrants particularly. Do you have a problem with citizens crowding ER's? Should we deport them?

[CT4Liberty]

I still do not get the whole argument that by allowing immigration we are losing national sovereignty ... unless we still do not distinguish immigration from citizenship?

If someone wants to come here, find a job, rent a house and obey the laws, how are we losing any sovereignty? They are not citizens, they are merely migrant workers who will help keep the balance in the markets.

Unless your claim is that only US Citizens should have rights to jobs or be allowed to come visit the US...because if thats the case we should start booting out all those people on visas or vacationing in Disney!

Bottom line is, if someone is the best qualified person for a job and wants to take it, who am I to stop him. Using the current welfare state to advocate against someone freely and legally obtaining a job and living somewhere, while not infringing on anyone elses rights is the same type of arguments gun grabbers make to take away everyones guns. 1- it doesnt solve the real problem, it merely goes after the symptoms and 2- you cannot defend liberty by taking it away.

[XTreat]

I have yet to hear a solution as to how we are going to remove 15 million "illegals" or stop anymore from coming in.

[CaptUSA]

I have yet to hear a solution as to how we are going to remove 15 million "illegals" or stop anymore from coming in.

MOAR GUVMINT!

[jllundqu]

I have yet to hear a solution as to how we are going to remove 15 million "illegals" or stop anymore from coming in.

Dont remove them. Give them a path to legalization but not a path to citizenship. Give all 15 million a choice:

1. Self-Deport and apply to become a USC the legal way

or

2. Stay in the US LEGALLY (simply amend the Immigration and Nationality Act) and make them all Lawful Permanent Residents. They would have legal status, be out of the shadows, paying taxes, etc. If they choose to stay in the US legally as LPRs, they would forever forfeit becoming US Citizens (aka could never vote democratic).

This seems to me to be a great comprimise. The left gets what they want (mostly): victory lap on immigration, etc. The right gets what they want.

[KingNothing]

Wow... so now we are simply dumb animals. Okie dokie!



I think in this instance he's saying that we're much dumber than other animals, and he's right.

[KingNothing]

--It is not my problem that their country is a 3rd world narco state (admittedly a US created one)... I don't want that spilling into my back yard (Im in Arizona).



It is your problem. It is my problem. Every single one of us contributes to this problem, and every single one of us is hurt by it in some form or another.

For better or worse, we are citizens. We vote. Politicians, by definition, must listen to enough of us to win or retain their seats. If government policy is failing us as individuals or as society, it is our fault -- either because we are not active enough, or because we are not capable enough to overcome its obfuscation and manipulation.

To say this isn't your problem is to ignore your inherent obligation as a human being.

[QuickZ06]

If they had that system of laws, yes, but they had an open borders approach. See how that worked out for them...


It was not the lack of laws that got the in the situation they were in, it was the fact they did not organize until it was too late.

[KingNothing]

Trust me, I fully understand the order in which things need to occur, but I find it incredibly difficult to argue for liberty while arguing against it. I will not allow the failures of this government to drive me into their arms asking for MORE government. It won't happen.

Amazing post!

[QuickZ06]

MOAR GUVMINT!

MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KingNothing]

Immigrants pay for their own public schooling. Do they not pay property tax? Do they not pay sales tax? Do they not pay excise tax?

AS far as hospitals go, again your problem seems to be with government regulation of the market, not immigrants particularly. Do you have a problem with citizens crowding ER's? Should we deport them?


Does Liberty Eagle think poor people shouldn't be allowed to have children? The effect is exactly the same - they will just receive welfare.

[Brian4Liberty]

“This is the natural law, a natural right,”

That seems correct if it stands by itself. But does that trump other rights?

- As a private property owner, we have the right to say who comes on and off our property, who stays on our property, who eats dinner at our property, who lives on our property.

- As an employer, I have the right to decide who I hire.

- A private club or organization has the right to decide who becomes a member, and what rules apply.

All of the above can or do consist of more than one individual. These are group rights, in addition to being individual rights.

If a community of people all live together, with continuous adjacent properties (no unowned property) can they exercise all of the above rights? If we call that a nation, can they exercise all of the above rights?

Is this a matter of scope or size?

[Ender]

Be sure and tell Ron Paul too, why don't you? Because he is a strong advocate of national sovereignty and is totally against any semblance of open borders while the welfare state is in place.


I am totally anti-entitlement and agree that the welfare state should be abolished. BUT- I am not going to advocate more government to solve government idiocy.

To deny a law-abiding person, who contributes to the economic health of the country, access to living and working here is stupidity at its highest.

[sailingaway]

So- your solution is more government? More government to solve too much government?

Time to understand what real freedom is, my friend; and it has nothing to do with a "perfect world" scenario.

I understand your position, but in the reality of how things are, I come down in a different place

[Southron]

I bet a billion people from Asia are just waiting for the US government to declare immigration to the US a human right. At least we won't have to worry about petty politics anymore.

[sailingaway]

Immigrants pay for their own public schooling. Do they not pay property tax? Do they not pay sales tax? Do they not pay excise tax?

AS far as hospitals go, again your problem seems to be with government regulation of the market, not immigrants particularly. Do you have a problem with citizens crowding ER's? Should we deport them?


All countries with govt funded (taxpayer funded) benefits limit entry to those who pay below a level where they would net drain the system. it is simply a fact that some don't pay much into these things, and disproportionately avail themselves of them. As for hospitals, yes, an ideal system would be very different. Looking at the direction our country is going, do you think we are likely to get that in the time frome of the bill under consideration?

Of course my issue isn't with the immigrants as people(the bulk of them). And if you looked at my earlier posts, I am not talking about deporting those here a long time, but not having chain migration stem from them, or reward them further with votes, when they aren't here legally. LEGAL immigration is a very different subject to me. I'm just discussing the philosophic point of whether a sovereign nation has a right to say who comes in and who doesn't, period. And I believe it does. I also know some here think it doesn't. that tends to prove despositive of this issue on a 'which comes first' way of looking at it.

[erowe1]

Even if immigration isn't a right, is there any way for the federal government to control immigration without violating our rights?

[loveableteddybear]

Isn't the problem not immigration, but the President can arbitrarily do whatever he wants? If there is a law on the books, even bad, the President's job is to "execute" the law, hence "executive branch."

[jllundqu]

Be sure and tell Ron Paul too, why don't you? Because he is a strong advocate of national sovereignty and is totally against any semblance of open borders while the welfare state is in place.

+rep

And how!

[Confederate]

Although Artical 1, Section 8 of Constitution allows regulation of immigration, immigrants here have the right to stay here since you don't have to be a citizen to stay or live here.

Actually you don't have a right to stay in the US unless you are a citizen. But then again, that hasn't stopped you from overstaying your visa and living in the country illegally.

[erowe1]

That seems correct if it stands by itself. But does that trump other rights?

- As a private property owner, we have the right to say who comes on and off our property, who stays on our property, who eats dinner at our property, who lives on our property.

- As an employer, I have the right to decide who I hire.

- A private club or organization has the right to decide who becomes a member, and what rules apply.

All of the above can or do consist of more than one individual. These are group rights, in addition to being individual rights.

If a community of people all live together, with continuous adjacent properties (no unowned property) can they exercise all of the above rights? If we call that a nation, can they exercise all of the above rights?

Is this a matter of scope or size?

It's not just a matter of scope and size, but also unanimity.

You have a right to keep people off your property. You just don't have a right to keep them from anywhere else. You and a bunch of other people can all apply the same restrictions to all of your properties. But you can never include anyone in that outside of those who agree to it.

[Brian4Liberty]

Obama is pushing his version of immigration reform with a speech right now...

[libertygrl]

How can anyone begrudge an individual for trying to make a better life for themselves and their family? If I were in Mexico, living in poverty and could cross an imaginary line and get a job working hard scrubbing toilets and be able to put my kids into school in order to better their lives, I would do it as well.

So long as they dont come in and try to take my property or infringe on my rights, all the best to them on improving their lives.

Especially since we were the ones that caused it because of NAFTA.

The only problem with having an open border is that along with decent people coming in, we've had thousands of murderous gangs and drug cartels that have murdered, and raped American citizens. Our jails are overcrowded with them. I don't know what the answer is.

[erowe1]

Actually you don't have a right to stay in the US unless you are a citizen.
What do you base that on?

[UpperDecker]

Ugh, Obama is comparing the illegal immigrants of today to those who came through Ellis Island legally long ago. I hate when people do that, it is not even remotely close to the same thing.

[Confederate]

What do you base that on?


The law.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's not just a matter of scope and size, but also unanimity.

You have a right to keep people off your property. You just don't have a right to keep them from anywhere else.

Every decision made by a club is unanimous? Every decision made in a household is unanimous?

[CaptUSA]

Obama is pushing his version of immigration reform with a speech right now...Scary. Is he saying that he will allow any immigrant permanent citizen status if they register as a democrat? Because then, he'd at least be being honest.

[erowe1]

The law.

What law? One that a bunch of people made up?

[loveableteddybear]

What law? One that a bunch of people made up?
Yeah.

The opposite of having laws is anarchy. Which obviously isn't constiutional. But, it might blow your mind that not everyone here is an anarchist.

[erowe1]

Every decision made by a club is unanimous? Every decision made in a household is unanimous?

In a club, yes, because every individual personally chooses whether or not to join the club and to accept its rules and decisions that are made according to those rules. A club (at least one that's not a criminal gang) can't go around forcing people to join.

I see households differently. I don't think the arrangement of a household can be imposed on groups outside that. One way to think of authority in a household might be to think about the owner of the household having the right to set the rules. Personally, that's not how I look at it, but either way I think households can be set aside from other groups.

[James Madison]

There are already too many Americans and too few jobs to go around. Let's encourage more immigration and drive down wages even further. :rolleyes:

And while we're at it, let's bring in people from cultures with no tradition of free society. That way they can turn the US into the same hellhole they just escaped from.

[erowe1]

Yeah.

The opposite of having laws is anarchy. Which obviously isn't constiutional. But, it might blow your mind that not everyone here is an anarchist.

I never said anything about anarchy. Do you think I'm an anarchist or something?

Do you think our rights come from laws that a bunch of people made up?

[erowe1]

There are already too many Americans and too few jobs to go around.

The number of jobs to go around is infinite. And most of America is uninhabited wilderness. We're not even one tenth of the way to being close to anything that could be considered overpopulated.

[Brian4Liberty]

Let's face reality. Very few people that argue for open immigration do so primarily out of ideological purity. They do so for their own self-interest.

Some examples:

- To get cheaper labor.
- To get more voters (Primarily Democrats, but many in the GOP now foolishly believe they will somehow convince Democrats to turn into Republicans).
- To bring in more of their own (Family, friends, people from the same village, country, religion, ethnicity or race).
- To bring in more of their own, self-identified group in order to eventually outnumber other groups they feel are in opposition. Conquest.
- Non US-citizens who want to get into the US in the first place.

[loveableteddybear]

There are already too many Americans and too few jobs to go around. Let's encourage more immigration and drive down wages even further. :rolleyes:

And while we're at it, let's bring in people from cultures with no tradition of free society. That way they can turn the US into the same hellhole they just escaped from.
+Rep. We need controlled immigration so we can assimilate people into Americans. My wife isn't American, but by virtue of marrying me, she will have the same voting power as a natural born citizen. There is obviously a conflict of interests.

[loveableteddybear]

I never said anything about anarchy. Do you think I'm an anarchist or something?

Do you think our rights come from laws that a bunch of people made up?

No, but gov't inherently limits and regulates rights, which is why immigration is a power given to the gov't to regulate. If we accept gov't, we accept limits on our rights.

[erowe1]

No, but gov't inherently limits and regulates rights, which is why immigration is a power given to the gov't to regulate. If we accept gov't, we accept limits on our rights.

Do you think the government can only do that for those who accept it? Or does the government have the right to limit the rights of those who don't accept it too?

[Brian4Liberty]

In a club, yes, because every individual personally chooses whether or not to join the club and to accept its rules and decisions that are made according to those rules. A club (at least one that's not a criminal gang) can't go around forcing people to join.


Force is not necessary. People want to members of the club. They will stay members of the club, even if a particular issue doesn't go the way they want it. Unanimity is not required. Even people who complain that they want to leave the club after a vote rarely do. Where is Alec Baldwin these days?

[erowe1]

Let's face reality. Very few people that argue for open immigration do so primarily out of ideological purity. They do so for their own self-interest.

Some examples:

- To get cheaper labor.
- To get more voters (Primarily Democrats, but many in the GOP now foolishly believe they will somehow convince Democrats to turn into Republicans).
- To bring in more of their own (Family, friends, people from the same village, country, religion, ethnicity or race).
- To bring in more of their own, self-identified group in order to eventually outnumber other groups they feel are in opposition. Conquest.
- Non US-citizens who want to get into the US in the first place.

Aren't all those things perfectly valid things to pursue? What right do I have to interfere with someone else who wants to do any of those?

[Brian4Liberty]

I see households differently. I don't think the arrangement of a household can be imposed on groups outside that. One way to think of authority in a household might be to think about the owner of the household having the right to set the rules. Personally, that's not how I look at it, but either way I think households can be set aside from other groups.

Not the master of your own home, eh? ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

On paper, Libertarians are right on this subject. When you actually start practicing such policies in the physical realm with with real human bodies, they are extremely mistaken.
Everyone's got theoretical fixes that aren't practical. Small l libertarians differ on how to deal with this problem wildly, too. I'm of the opinion that all land should be privately owned-giving owners an incentive to rationally deal with people wanting to move from point A to point B. The mixed economy in land we currently have leads to numerous unnecessary conflicts, including immigration "issues". IOW, the extremes on all sides are all wrong.

[erowe1]

Force is not necessary. People want to members of the club. They will stay members of the club, even if a particular issue doesn't go the way they want it. Unanimity is not required. Even people who complain that they want to leave the club after a vote rarely do. Where is Alec Baldwin these days?

What you just described is unanimity. Even without unanimity on a particular issue, all members are unanimous in the acceptance of all that belonging to the club entails, including the parts they would like to change. They have no right to make others members of their club who don't want to be.

[Brian4Liberty]

Aren't all those things perfectly valid things to pursue? What right do I have to interfere with someone else who wants to do any of those?

What right do you have to interfere with anything that anybody else wants to do?

[erowe1]

Not the master of your own home, eh? ;)

On the contrary, I said decisions in the household DON'T have to be unanimous.

[loveableteddybear]

Do you think the government can only do that for those who accept it? Or does the government have the right to limit the rights of those who don't accept it too?

Gov't is force and it limits the rights of individuals. For example, sacrificing your first born child to Molech is against the law, and it thereby deprives the rights of people who want to practice near-eastern ancient religious rites. So yes, the gov't can limit the rights of people without consent. The "consent of the governed" ultimately will deprive certain people who do not give consent. The rawest version of this is democracy where there is a tyranny of a majority.

What do you propose, no laws without 100% acceptance? These ideological fancies are bad for our mov't.

[erowe1]

What right do you have to interfere with anything that anybody else wants to do?

I have lots of rights to interfere with what others want to do, but only if what they want to do impinges on my rights. If it doesn't, then I have no right to stop them.

[helmuth_hubener]

Really.

So the English settlers were trespassing on private Indian property? Some English settlers trespassed, yes. I think you can agree on that, being familiar with some of the history, yes? However, as best as I can tell, there was only a portion of the land in North America, a relatively small percentage of the total square mileage, which was actually owned by Indians. Most was simply unused and unoccupied, and thus up for homesteading.

[Brian4Liberty]

What you just described is unanimity. Even without unanimity on a particular issue, all members are unanimous in the acceptance of all that belonging to the club entails, including the parts they would like to change. They have no right to make others members of their club who don't want to be.

At last check, the right of emigration still exists in the club of the United Socialist States of America.

[erowe1]

Gov't is force and it limits the rights of individuals. For example, sacrificing your first born child to Molech is against the law, and it thereby deprives the rights of people who want to practice near-eastern ancient religious rites. So yes, the gov't can limit the rights of people without consent. The "consent of the governed" ultimately will deprive certain people who do not give consent. The rawest version of this is democracy where there is a tyranny of a majority.

What do you propose, no laws without 100% acceptance? These ideological fancies are bad for our mov't.

I can't tell what your answer to the question is. You're the one who said that government has a right to limit the rights of those who accept it. Do you really think acceptance of it is necessary? Or would you rather eliminate that part of what you said, and just say that government has a right to limit peoples' rights, whether they accept it or not.

Nobody has a right to sacrifice someone else to Molech. So that's not an example of someone's rights being limited.

[erowe1]

At last check, the right of emigration still exists in the club of the United Socialist States of America.

What does that mean? Moving somewhere?

[Raudsarw]

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Welcome immigrants, or send back the statue of liberty. The Welfare state is NOT sufficient reason to deny immigration rights. Because of one infringement on liberty, you want even more? If anything, a stream of immigrants coming to collect benefits strengthens the argument that the welfare state is unsustainable.

[Brian4Liberty]

I have lots of rights to interfere with what others want to do, but only if what they want to do impinges on my rights. If it doesn't, then I have no right to stop them.

So you will wait until you are surrounded, outnumbered, outvoted, and outgunned, and when they come to your home to remove you, you will then say that your rights are being infringed?

[helmuth_hubener]

I think individuals formed nationstates to defend their rights to create their own system of governance
They didn't actually do that, of course. Not historically. I don't know how important it is that you think this to your ultimate conclusions and world-view, perhaps it doesn't really matter one way or the other. But regardless, if you're interested in the truth, you should eventually stop thinking this. Because it did not happen.

I recommend reading, for example, The State (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1115878689?tag=lewrockwell&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1115878689&adid=039ZZWVVN840Z2B92QND&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Fbooks%2F anarcho-capitalism2.html), by Franz Oppenheimer.

[twomp]

MOAR GUVMINT!

LOTS MORE!!

We need walls and armed guards on the walls. We need identifications for EVERYONE. We need cameras in every corner and drones over every city. We need to treat the immigrants like POKEMON. GOTTA CATCH EM ALL!!!

[erowe1]

So you will wait until you are surrounded, outnumbered, outvoted, and outgunned, and when they come to your home to remove you, you will then say that your rights are being infringed?

Or when anyone does anything against my rights. But until they do, what option do I have? It seems like what you're getting at is that I should do something that is wrong right now, in order to prevent someone from having the ability to do something wrong to me in the future.

[alucard13mmfmj]

I wish I lived in The Judge's world, and Ron Paul's world for that matter, but alas... we live in this one. Granting citizenship to 12 million illlegals (whom all data shows would vote overwhelmingly Democrat) would end the two party system forever. We would have a total socialist/communist statist's wet dream.

Yes. GOP is fooling themselves by pretending to be illegal alien friendly. Most illegals will become democrats. GOP should probably offer an alternative to amnesty, like revamping the immigration process so it is faster and/or cheaper even if it might cost more money. GOP know hispanics mostly lean towards democrats.. which is why GOP is trying to pander to them. Immigration and Rubio. I respect hispanics enough to say that they are not going to fall for it. Many asians will be democrats as well.

Ending 2 party system might not be so bad... Not like we get anything done with the 2 party system (although it does keep SOME bad things from passing). If democrats have sole power, then they can take sole blame. Instead of passing the puck to each other and perpetuating this bullS--t.

[Brian4Liberty]

What does that mean? Moving somewhere?

You keep talking about the right to leave the club. That right exists.

If someone doesn't want to be a member of an HOA, they have the right to leave that club too.

[helmuth_hubener]

At last check, the right of emigration still exists in the club of the United Socialist States of America. If there really was a group of people who had legitimately, through purely voluntary means, achieved ownership of 1/3 of North America, then yes, it would be perfectly legitimate for them to treat it as their property -- since it is their property -- and to make rules regarding who is welcome and how they must behave while guests "in their house" so to speak. So your logic is totally sound and fine, given such a group.

Since there is no such group, any men arrogating to themselves the right to do this are mere usurpers. I oppose usurpation. I think we all do. Don't you?

[sailingaway]

They didn't actually do that, of course. Not historically. I don't know how important it is that you think this to your ultimate conclusions and world-view, perhaps it doesn't really matter one way or the other. But regardless, if you're interested in the truth, you should eventually stop thinking this. Because it did not happen.

I recommend reading, for example, The State (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1115878689?tag=lewrockwell&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1115878689&adid=039ZZWVVN840Z2B92QND&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Fbooks%2F anarcho-capitalism2.html), by Franz Oppenheimer.

I spoke sloppily, but I will take a look at your link. I should have said that in currently analyzing where we are now and the comparative evils I see local rule as best and most likely to let people live as they want. but then they need to enforce, locally, how they want it. Cities, counties, states, Federal.... each needs to have their jurisdiction, more local the better. Vs global, I think national sovereignty permits more local policy influence. The bigger and more distant the decision making body the bigger the special interest has to be to influence it, the less voice the individual has. That is sort of what I meant, not that when they were initially formed people went through this same mindset.

[erowe1]

You keep talking about the right to leave the club. That right exists.

If someone doesn't want to be a member of an HOA, they have the right to leave that club too.

First of all, joining a club in the first place has to be by choice, that includes HOA's.

And if the right of the regime in DC to rule over me is based on my supposedly accepting that rule by not moving away, then is emigrating really a way out of the club? Like, if I went to, say, Iraq, I'd be free from having my rights violated by the club I never joined? And let's say that were true, what would happen when we did get one-world-government (if you don't think it's here already)? Would you tell me that you have a right to violate other peoples' rights on the grounds that if they don't like it they can always go to Mars?

[erowe1]

You keep talking about the right to leave the club. That right exists.

If someone doesn't want to be a member of an HOA, they have the right to leave that club too.

First of all, joining a club in the first place has to be by choice, that includes HOA's.

And if the right of the regime in DC to rule over me is based on my supposedly accepting that rule by not moving away, then is emigrating really a way out of the club? Like, if I went to, say, Iraq, I'd be free from having my rights violated by the club I never joined? And let's say that were true, what would happen when we did get one-world-government (if you don't think it's here already)? Would you tell me that you have a right to violate other peoples' rights on the grounds that if they don't like it they can always go to Mars?

[loveableteddybear]

I can't tell what your answer to the question is. You're the one who said that government has a right to limit the rights of those who accept it. Do you really think acceptance of it is necessary? Or would you rather eliminate that part of what you said, and just say that government has a right to limit peoples' rights, whether they accept it or not.

Nobody has a right to sacrifice someone else to Molech. So that's not an example of someone's rights being limited.
You're complicating it Rowe. Yes, the gov't can limit the rights of people. That's what gov't does. That's why we make a constitution to address what boundaries exist for gov't.

Molech worship is a right to those tha believe in it and your consent of 100% of those governed is silly.

[otherone]

Come to think of it, undocumented immigrants may be the last free people in the world. Why would anyone WANT to be saddled with a social security number?

[erowe1]

You're complicating it Rowe. Yes, the gov't can limit the rights of people. That's what gov't does. That's why we make a constitution to address what boundaries exist for gov't.

I'm not complicating it. I'm asking questions based on what you're saying. You're the one who said that the government has a right to limit the rights of those who accept it. I still can't tell if you meant that or not. Do you really think acceptance is necessary?


Molech worship is a right to those tha believe in it

Do you really believe that? So all I have to do to have the right to kill you is to believe I have that right?


and your consent of 100% of those governed is silly.

Who has the right to rule over someone without their consent? And where does that authority come from?

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes. GOP is fooling themselves by pretending to be illegal alien friendly. Most illegals will become democrats. GOP should probably offer an alternative to amnesty, like revamping the immigration process so it is faster and/or cheaper even if it might cost more money. GOP know hispanics mostly lean towards democrats.. which is why GOP is trying to pander to them. Immigration and Rubio. I respect hispanics enough to say that they are not going to fall for it. Many asians will be democrats as well.

It's utterly foolish nonsense for the GOP to think that they will get more voters out of this. The California GOP is notorious for this thinking. The last two Senate races, they put up women because they wanted to get the female vote against a sitting female Senator. Hello McFly?! Why would a Democrat vote for a Republican? Just because they are both women? Yeah, that's some logic there.

(And no, this is not conjecture. I was in attendance at a small gathering where a GOP leadership old-timer was introducing Fiorina as the Senate candidate, and he explicitly said that it was about running a woman against a woman.)

[loveableteddybear]

All this comes down to your final question:

"Who has the right to rule over someone without their consent? And where does that authority come from?"

No one is born with the right. The right is taken by force and imposed upon the party with less force.

As Thrasymachus correctly observed in The Replubic, "Justice is the will of the stronger."

That's just reality, as no governing system can get 100% to agree on anything. The fact you stubbornly don't accept molech worship (which is just ancient abortion by the way) is simply an example of that.

[helmuth_hubener]

I spoke sloppily, but I will take a look at your link. I should said that in currently analyzing where we are now and the comparative evils I see local rule as best and most likely to let people live as they want. but then they need to enforce, locally, how they want it. Cities, counties, states, Federal.... each needs to have their jurisdiction, more local the better. Vs global, I think national sovereignty permits more local policy influence. The bigger and more distant the decision making body the bigger the special interest has to be to influence it, the less voice the individual has. That is sort of what I meant, not that when they were initially formed people went through this same mindset. I agree with all of this wholeheartedly. The smaller the polity, the more local the control, the better the situation will be. Decentralization is always preferable to centralization when it comes to states. 50 totally sovereign states would be such a much better situation than what we have now, which is essentially one mammoth nation-state ruling over the whole continent. And as you say, with counties: an America of 3000 independent, sovereign former-counties now-states, this would be like paradise on Earth! Liberty would blossom like out-of-control weeds. It would be amazing. And you go further and mention cities. Yes, sure, of course; cities should also be allowed to secede from their county-states and become independent city-states.

So up to that point, we're both on the same page. I just take the logic a mere two steps further. First, neighborhoods. Should a neighborhood not be permitted to peacefully choose independence from the city? And finally, families/individuals. Should they not be able to be masters of their own destinies?

[Brian4Liberty]

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."


You are quoting a pro-immigration propaganda poem.

[erowe1]

All this comes down to your final question:

"Who has the right to rule over someone without their consent? And where does that authority come from?"

No one is born with the right. The right is taken by force and imposed upon the party with less force.


You're equivocating between is and ought. A right isn't simply what a person happens to succeed at. A right is something that they can do without being morally wrong. If there does not exist such a thing as right and wrong, then there is no such thing as rights. In that case there would be no meaning to a discussion about what a country's immigration laws ought to be, since there would be no such thing as ought.

Our rights (if such things exist) aren't given to us by whatever strong regime rules us. And if that regime violates our rights, that doesn't make them any less our rights.

[sailingaway]

I agree with all of this wholeheartedly. The smaller the polity, the more local the control, the better the situation will be. Decentralization is always preferable to centralization when it comes to states. 50 totally sovereign states would be such a much better situation than what we have now, which is essentially one mammoth nation-state ruling over the whole continent. And as you say, with counties: an America of 3000 independent, sovereign former-counties now-states, this would be like paradise on Earth! Liberty would blossom like out-of-control weeds. It would be amazing. And you go further and mention cities. Yes, sure, of course; cities should also be allowed to secede from their county-states and become independent city-states.

So up to that point, we're both on the same page. I just take the logic a mere two steps further. First, neighborhoods. Should a neighborhood not be permitted to peacefully choose independence from the city? And finally, families/individuals. Should they not be able to be masters of their own destinies?

Maybe, if they don't depend on the larger structure. I guess I'd have to think about implication, but I'm not opposed to the idea.

[Brian4Liberty]

If there really was a group of people who had legitimately, through purely voluntary means, achieved ownership of 1/3 of North America, then yes, it would be perfectly legitimate for them to treat it as their property -- since it is their property -- and to make rules regarding who is welcome and how they must behave while guests "in their house" so to speak. So your logic is totally sound and fine, given such a group.

Since there is no such group, any men arrogating to themselves the right to do this are mere usurpers. I oppose usurpation. I think we all do. Don't you?

So are we talking once again about size and scope?

An HOA is very easily usurped, and it happens all the time.

[loveableteddybear]

You're equivocating between is and ought. A right isn't simply what a person happens to succeed at. A right is something that they can do without being morally wrong. If there does not exist such a thing as right and wrong, then there is no such thing as rights. In that case there would be no meaning to a discussion about what a country's immigration laws ought to be, since there would be no such thing as ought.

Our rights (if such things exist) aren't given to us by whatever strong regime that rules us. And if that regime violates our rights, that doesn't make them any less our rights.
Yes I'm talking about is, and not ought, because the reality is that rights are an illusion. It's cute to say that God gives us rights, but I don't read that in my Bible. God gives man "responsibilities" which include our interactions with others, our own motivations and feelings, and our feelings and love towards Him. Nothing there is about what we're entitled to.

If you want to go invent a made up God that gives people "rights" go ahead. But, in reality, we're all just made from mud with neurons flickering in our brains giving us the feeling of consciousness. And we imagine these things called rights and wish that things were more fair, but reality, might makes right.

[helmuth_hubener]

So are we talking once again about size and scope?

An HOA is very easily usurped, and it happens all the time. No, we (or at least I) am talking about legitimacy. A very wealthy person could buy up a vast tract of land, fence it off, and make it kind of his own private country, wherein he sets the rules.

What he cannot do, what no one can do, is to simply decree "this is all mine; I make the rules". Just draw an arbitrary line and poof! everybody in that line has to follow his rules. "Stroke of the pen, law of the land... kinda cool". Sorry, that is illegitimate. You can't just decide that stuff is yours which, in point of fact, isn't yours. Wouldn't you agree?

So often in life, two people could be doing what on the surface looks like the same action, but depending on the situation one could be totally legitimate and on the up-and-up, while the other is totally evil and outrageous.

[helmuth_hubener]

Maybe, if they don't depend on the larger structure. I guess I'd have to think about implication, but I'm not opposed to the idea.
Cool! :cool: :)

It's always nice talking with you, sailingaway.

[erowe1]

Yes I'm talking about is, and not ought, because the reality is that rights are an illusion. It's cute to say that God gives us rights, but I don't read that in my Bible.

Sure you do. "Thou shalt not steal," is another way of saying the other guy has a right not to be robbed.

If you prefer not to put biblical laws into the terminology of rights, I'm fine with that. We don't need to put it in terms of rights. We can just talk about God's moral law. The immigration policy I support would be one that does not involve me in violating God's moral law. For example, if you want to hire people to work for you, and I pursue some policy of stealing money from you any time I catch you hiring someone without my permission, I would be violating God's law.

[otherone]

Yes I'm talking about is, and not ought, because the reality is that rights are an illusion. It's cute to say that God gives us rights, but I don't read that in my Bible. God gives man "responsibilities" which include our interactions with others, our own motivations and feelings, and our feelings and love towards Him. Nothing there is about what we're entitled to.



Could have come from (paraphrased) Obama's, Hillary's, JFK's. or FDR's mouth.

[loveableteddybear]

Sure you do. "Thou shalt not steal," is another way of saying the other guy has a right not to be robbed.

If you prefer not to put biblical laws into the terminology of rights, I'm fine with that. We don't need to put it in terms of rights. We can just talk about God's moral law. The immigration policy I support would be one that does not involve me in violating God's moral law. For example, if you want to hire people to work for you, and I pursue some policy of stealing money from you any time I catch you hiring someone without my permission, I would be violating God's law.
Hey, I have 3 immigrants working for me, so I don't disagree with your morality. I'm just talking about the nature of rights and laws. It was an interesting discussion.

[loveableteddybear]

Could have come from (paraphrased) Obama's, Hillary's, JFK's. or FDR's mouth.
Comes straight from Plato and the Book of Job my friend.

[AuH20]

Either utilize the monopoly of force encoded in the political process or the new guests will gladly utilize it on you tenfold. It's very simple to understand. Now if we could just move away from this absurd democracy and get back to a decentralized republic that would not intentionally attract a mass exodus of people for purely selfish reasons.

[otherone]

Comes straight from Plato and the Book of Job my friend.

....and this is relevant to a discussion about freedom how? Are you saying we aren't supposed to be free? What are you advocating for, friend?

[erowe1]

Hey, I have 3 immigrants working for me, so I don't disagree with your morality. I'm just talking about the nature of rights and laws. It was an interesting discussion.

How does any state limit immigration without doing something immoral?

[loveableteddybear]

....and this is relevant to a discussion about freedom how? Are you saying we aren't supposed to be free? What are you advocating for, friend?
They are relevant to people asking headier questions as to why we accept things like laws.

We're here to talk about a return to governance that permits human freedom, but that adheres to the Constitution. Without libertarianism being confined by Constitutionalism, we have anarchy.

[loveableteddybear]

How does any state limit immigration without doing something immoral?
It is immoral. Gov't is immoral. It's a necessary evil.

[erowe1]

No, we (or at least I) am talking about legitimacy. A very wealthy person could buy up a vast tract of land, fence it off, and make it kind of his own private country, wherein he sets the rules.

I'm not so sure about that.

[erowe1]

It is immoral. Gov't is immoral. It's a necessary evil.

So you positively support doing things you know are immoral?

[loveableteddybear]

So you positively support doing things you know are immoral?
No, I accept things as they are. I'd like to be a Christian Anarchist, but in reality I'd like legal recourse if someone destroyed my property. So, now we need courts, police..and BAM...now we are exercising immoral force over people. The greater immorality is allowing people to just have a free for all on each other.

[erowe1]

No, I accept things as they are. I'd like to be a Christian Anarchist, but in reality I'd like legal recourse if someone destroyed my property. So, now we need courts, police..and BAM...now we are exercising immoral force over people.

I accept things as they are too. I don't imagine that I'll ever live in a world with no theft this side of the return of Jesus. But when I'm given a vote for more theft or less theft, my vote will always be for less. And there is no point at which theft can be reduced far enough that I will say, "That's the right amount of theft. We shouldn't reduce it any more."


The greater immorality is allowing people to just have a free for all on each other.

If I allow you to hire whomever you want without me stealing from you whenever you hire someone without my permission, that's not a free-for-all. That's just me not doing something that I ought not do.

[loveableteddybear]

I accept things as they are too. I don't imagine that I'll ever live in a world with no theft this side of the return of Jesus. But when I'm given a vote for more theft or less theft, my vote will always be for less. And there is no point at which theft can be reduced far enough that I will say, "That's the right amount of theft. We shouldn't reduce it any more."
Fair enough, I'm not is disagreement. My feelings towards individuals that work with me (or my wife for that matter), is that there are good immigrants but open-borders is a bad policy because it will destroy the country in which these immigrants want to go to to begin with.

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm not so sure about that. Well, at what point do you want to restrict his freedom? Do you want to ban him from buying the land? Perhaps some anti "land hoarding" statute? Or do you want to force him to allow anyone and everyone on his land? Do you want to micro-manage people's "house rules"?

Now there are limits to the house rules people can make. And, most importantly perhaps, to the penalties which can be imposed. I can say "all visitors to my home must stand on their heads" but if they refuse, I cannot lock them in my basement. I can only ask them to leave. So the rich landowner wouldn't be able to recreate all the features of the modern nation-state we know and love. Mass-murder and mass-enslavement would be out.

[AuH20]

In a non-socialist, uncoddled environment, we wouldn't have a mass immigration problem. Only the true believers would stay, which would make our country collectively stronger as opposed to weaker and consequently more oppressive.

[erowe1]

Well, at what point do you want to restrict his freedom? Do you want to ban him from buying the land? Perhaps some anti "land hoarding" statute? Or do you want to force him to allow anyone and everyone on his land? Do you want to micro-manage people's "house rules"?

An anti-land-hoarding statute would require a state to prevent it. I'd rather just see no state positively protecting his ownership of the land.

[Ender]

Some English settlers trespassed, yes. I think you can agree on that, being familiar with some of the history, yes? However, as best as I can tell, there was only a portion of the land in North America, a relatively small percentage of the total square mileage, which was actually owned by Indians. Most was simply unused and unoccupied, and thus up for homesteading.

Uh....no.

You've been reading too much public education history.

The Indians were a dense population and pretty sophisticated. The plague brought by early Europeans wiped 9/10's of the population out.

Here is a fun review on some real history- enjoy:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19864_6-ridiculous-lies-you-believe-about-founding-america_p2.html

[loveableteddybear]

In a non-socialist, uncoddled environment, we wouldn't have a mass immigration problem. Only the true believers would stay, which would make our country collectively stronger as opposed to weaker and consequently more oppressive.
Exactly. Immigration is being used as a weapon by collectivists to destroy the middle class and throw elections.

Soon, anyone who's family that came to this country before 1965 will realize that by 2065 they have been totally politically displaced by new immigrants and people on welfare.

[AuH20]

Exactly. Immigration is being used as a weapon by collectivists to destroy the middle class and throw elections.

Soon, anyone who's family that came to this country before 1965 will realize that by 2065 they have been totally politically displaced by new immigrants and people on welfare.

If you can't sell the stubborn clingers on a NWO superstate, then you REPLACE them with a less educated, more desperate group that is receptive to your tricks. At least that's what I would do if I was a power-mad social engineer. :) I get cheap labor and my superstate all rolled into one.

[Cutlerzzz]

This country was founded on federal immigration laws and restrictions. That's why we all had jobs back then. Now we've run out of jobs because too many people came here. We're now going bankrupt because of them (even if they don't get SS or Medicare).

[loveableteddybear]

If you can't sell the stubborn clingers on a NWO superstate, then you REPLACE them with a less educated, more desperate group that is receptive to your tricks. At least that's what I would do. :)

Exactly, it's a plot from the ruling class to totally subjugate the strongest middle class in history.

[Cutlerzzz]

I bet a billion people from Asia are just waiting for the US government to declare immigration to the US a human right. At least we won't have to worry about petty politics anymore.

So I can finally be tall?

[loveableteddybear]

So I can finally be tall?
You'll get to be big in the pants too.

[Brian4Liberty]

Sure you do. "Thou shalt not steal," is another way of saying the other guy has a right not to be robbed.

If you prefer not to put biblical laws into the terminology of rights, I'm fine with that. We don't need to put it in terms of rights. We can just talk about God's moral law. The immigration policy I support would be one that does not involve me in violating God's moral law. For example, if you want to hire people to work for you, and I pursue some policy of stealing money from you any time I catch you hiring someone without my permission, I would be violating God's law.

Biblical example of borders:


3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, to you have I given it, as I spoke unto Moses. 4 From the wilderness, and this Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your border.

[erowe1]

Biblical example of borders:

Do you infer from that that you have the right to violate God's laws?

[No Free Beer]

Easy fix:

Create a law that states any "illegal" immigrant who is currently in our country and wants citizenship, to come forward. They can fill out the necessary paper work and take the citizenship test.

However, upon approval, the individual must then pay a fine for not respecting our sovereignty.

For all those others who don't have a visa of any kind, and do not come forward, if the law comes across you and you don't have nec. identification, YOU GET THE BOOT!

[AGRP]

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002742545/5542816590_political_pictures_geronimo_illegal_ali ens_xlarge.jpeg

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0912/immigration-immigration-aliens-indians-illegal-okami-demotivational-poster-1259889740.png

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Qml0ZEgVSY8/S0SwV3iZQNI/AAAAAAAAATo/9UyZ91d2oCo/s1600/Plymouth-Rock-Comic.jpg

[loveableteddybear]

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002742545/5542816590_political_pictures_geronimo_illegal_ali ens_xlarge.jpeg

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0912/immigration-immigration-aliens-indians-illegal-okami-demotivational-poster-1259889740.png

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Qml0ZEgVSY8/S0SwV3iZQNI/AAAAAAAAATo/9UyZ91d2oCo/s1600/Plymouth-Rock-Comic.jpg
LOL, IT WORKED OUT REAL WELL FOR THE INdIANS!

/FACEPALM

[UMULAS]

this ignores that people have sums stripped from them without their agreement by govt to pay for things like schools, medical and retirement funds which are over burdened so the quality is terrible. The amounts are too great for the middle class in the areas worst hit by illegal immigration to afford the private schools (about $30,000 per child per year in Los Angeles for a decent one, right now.) So they need the quality of what they are being forced to pay for to stay as good as possible. I DO believe in sovereignty and I do believe a govt has a duty to look out for its citizens above anyone else. How else would you ever have local self determination of government? Note I am speaking of a government, not anarchy, because I do believe in a small government.

Regardless of the philosophical underpinning, I don't think the government of this country can legitimately force its citizens to pay for services and then let unlimited poor people from elsewhere use them. Those who get more in benefits then they pay in do drain what is available, and language is an additional cost. Language is also now cut in most schools until high school, in Los Angeles and then only Spanish is available, typically. It is very difficult to become fluent in ANY language with that, so only kids of those who speak English do NOT come out of the school system bilingual. That is a major market disadvantage, right there.

you can't have open borders and a welfare state, and there is no plan on the table to end the welfare state, to the contrary.

This is one of the topics there has always been a split on here, however, abortion being the other. Some people do believe in sovereignty and the ability of a country to set the rules of entry, some don't. Some believe life begins at conception, some don't. I have never seen anyone convinced of the opposing position.

Immigrants pay taxes, you argument is invalid.

[UMULAS]

Easy fix:

Create a law that states any "illegal" immigrant who is currently in our country and wants citizenship, to come forward. They can fill out the necessary paper work and take the citizenship test.

However, upon approval, the individual must then pay a fine for not respecting our sovereignty.

For all those others who don't have a visa of any kind, and do not come forward, if the law comes across you and you don't have nec. identification, YOU GET THE BOOT!

We might as well give everyone National ID cards as well right?

[helmuth_hubener]

Uh....no.

You've been reading too much public education history.

The Indians were a dense population and pretty sophisticated. The plague brought by early Europeans wiped 9/10's of the population out.


Uh....no, to what? What did I say that was wrong? The part about some English settlers trespassing? Surely we are in agreement on that. The United States nation-state behaved reprehensibly towards the natives on many occasions.

Perhaps you think *all* English settlers were trespassing? I find the history does not support that. There were vast uninhabited areas in North America as the English (and related) settlers spread westward homesteading across the continent 1600-1900 (and in fact, to present).

They were uninhabited only because of plague? Previously they were "densely populated"? That is a gross overstatement of the facts as we have them. We have, actually, very few facts. It has proven remarkably difficult to find any solid archeological or other evidence pinning down pre-Columbus American population sizes. As Wikipedia puts it:

"While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus, estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983)."

Most of these (let's take the high end and say) 18 million were in Mexico. Relatively few were in Idaho, Kansas, or Minnesota. How many, we don't know. But the evidence does not suggest very many. 2 million in the entire area of the United States west of the Mississippi is not an unrealistic estimate. I think I have, in fact, heard an estimate of 2 million for the entire United States, east and west. Anyway, the bulk of the land in the west was empty, even before any Europeans and any plagues they brought.

9/10s is a made-up number. We really don't know how high the population was pre-Columbus. In any case, one cannot blame John Q. Homesteader, circa 1860, setting up shop in South Dakota, for a plague that happened 300 years earlier. That doesn't make him a trespasser. What would make him a trespasser would be actual actions he took which were trespassing.

Not all English settlers did any such actions.


Here is a fun review on some real history- enjoy:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19864_6-ridiculous-lies-you-believe-about-founding-america_p2.html He overstates and oversimplifies some things. But, whatever. It's just an entertainment piece written for shock value. I rather think that nearly everyone is aware at this point that the Vikings got here before Columbus. That there is lot of evidence that there was, in fact, even more extensive cross-oceanic contact going on for centuries and centuries long before the Vikings came is, however, not well known. So I'm gratified to see him mention the Indians who came to Holland in 60 B.C. They weren't the only ones. There was quite a bit of Old World-New World travel going on.

~~~

In any case, I do not know exactly what all this has to do with the immigration debate, and specifically to the post I made which you were replying to. I expect you will tie it all in eventually and make your point.

[UMULAS]

Come to think of it, undocumented immigrants may be the last free people in the world. Why would anyone WANT to be saddled with a social security number?

It's not as fun as you think. We pay a larger amount of taxes on programs that we don't get and then get blamed on by people that were wasting taxpayers money.

[AGRP]

LOL, IT WORKED OUT REAL WELL FOR THE INdIANS!

/FACEPALM

Land does not belong to anyone. You laugh now, but you too will move or die one of these days and it will be passed onto another person.

[loveableteddybear]

Land does not belong to anyone. You laugh now, but you too will move or die one of these days and it will be passed onto another person.
/2 X Facepalm

Exactly, you just proved my point. I'm not exactly thrilled to watch my people commit national suicide. Even though death is inevitable to all, no need to end it shorter.

These feel-good open border people simply need to take some common sense pills or something. They think invoking indians and people dying somehow helps their position, when it only cuts it at the knees.

[helmuth_hubener]

An anti-land-hoarding statute would require a state to prevent it. I'd rather just see no state positively protecting his ownership of the land. Well of course. It goes without saying that a free society has no state, no coercively-enforced monopoly on dispute resolution. So, in a free society I could buy up property, in whatever quantity I want, and manage that property, in whatever way I want. In a free society, every man's home is his castle, and he the king of it.

[AGRP]

/2 X Facepalm

Exactly, you just proved my point. I'm not exactly thrilled to watch my people commit national suicide. Even though death is inevitable to all, no need to end it shorter.

These feel-good open border people simply need to take some common sense pills or something. They think invoking indians and people dying somehow helps their position, when it only cuts it at the knees.

Not owning land, nationalship, non-citizenship, etc. was not what killed the indians.

http://www.miataturbo.net/attachments/build-threads-57/53413-hustlers-build-thread-2-0-natural-aspiration-connection-troll-detected-radar-45b7-gif?dateline=1346288403

[No Free Beer]

We might as well give everyone National ID cards as well right?


Typical irrational answer.

We all have SS numbers, dude.

Get real.

[loveableteddybear]

Not owning land, nationalship, non-citizenship, etc. was not what killed the indians.

http://www.miataturbo.net/attachments/build-threads-57/53413-hustlers-build-thread-2-0-natural-aspiration-connection-troll-detected-radar-45b7-gif?dateline=1346288403
The fact that they often sold land, fought over territory and had solid political entities (i.e. Iroquois Confederation) disproves that. Resorting to calling someone a troll when the just served you on a silver platter doesn't make your "please, let's just let the WHOLE WORLD go to America, it'd be great" argument not sound any smarter.

[William R]

The Judge sounds like a crackpot on this one!! 95 percent of the illegals coming across the southern border are trespassing on private property. The ranchers haven't given their permission for people to do this. Doesn't the Judge believe in private property rights??

The Libertarians Case Against Open Borders

http://mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_3.pdf

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

There was never an immigration issue. People immigrate here based on good intentions. Even if they immigrate here illegally, they are not "illegal." The issue is the economy. Nobody would care about the immigration issue or the borders, if everyone was free and prosperous.

People complain about the illegals "taking our jobs." The only reason people complain is because the economy has been declining rapidly for a while. Meaning, that the massive amounts of immigrants are coming here simultaneously while the economy is declining. They're not the cause of economic decline, per se, as much as it's just bad timing. Yes, the immigration issue compounds the economic issue, but it's not the cause.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

For the record I agree with the judge on this and I am glad he laid it out there. Immigration will never be controlled by armies or police forces or drones or machine gun nests. The economy will always control the border. Cheap labor is a good thing and market forces will decide when cheap labor is needed.

The problem arises when, after the dust has settled revealing the truth, those who work in cheap labor mirror the same social function once performed by the common housewife; likewise, those who work in the promiscuity of management mirror the same function as the husband. When the government of doers steps in, they alter the situation to the benefit of tyranny and to the detriment of the disadvantaged by trying to make everyone equal. So they advance women up into management with those being jobs that the husband would have typically handle. In doing so, they express their hypocritical beliefs in the status that the husband is more valuable to the family than the wife - that rather than they be a joint business they are separate. This shames a women away from being a woman who stays at home taking care of children. In the meantime, those who would be taking on more husband like jobs are forced into doing those jobs typically performed by the common housewife.
The fallacy is established that to rise up to the height of society, one has to read books and to go places. Women feel cheated having to stay at home while at the same time the husband gets to go out out into the world to involve himself in the mysterious matters of intrigue and romance. So, they talk to lawyers. These workers of inequity convince them that they can have their cake and eat it to. You can have the children at home and also the job in the high rise office building. Indeed, you can buy domestic servants to help you, one being a nanny to take care of the children and the other a housekeeper to clean the house.
When a woman calls a man a sexist, she is hypocritical in how she is buying into the fallacy that there is something wrong with being a woman and something right with being a man with this being one false dichotomy among an endless number of them. This is why I'm always trying to establish just one true dichotomy of an enthroned king on one of the political spectrum and a homeless prostitute on the other end of it.

[LibertyEagle]

http://i48.tinypic.com/ny8gw9.png

Bullshit if ILLEGAL ALIENS do, Umulas. They don't deserve anything but their asses kicked out of the country. We are a nation of laws and they chose to break it.

[otherone]

Typical irrational answer.

We all have SS numbers, dude.

Get real.

http://imageshack.us/a/img534/2362/carddownthar.jpg

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

What good is it to have a free and prosperous country if we're going to be Isolationists and close our borders to people who are simply seeking a better life?

[misean]

There was never an immigration issue. People immigrate here based on good intentions. Even if they immigrate here illegally, they are not "illegal." The issue is the economy. Nobody would care about the immigration issue or the borders, if everyone was free and prosperous.

People complain about the illegals "taking our jobs." The only reason people complain is because the economy has been declining rapidly for a while. Meaning, that the massive amounts of immigrants are coming here simultaneously while the economy is declining. They're not the cause of economic decline, per se, as much as it's just bad timing. Yes, the immigration issue compounds the economic issue, but it's not the cause.

The second part isn't correct. Immigrants do not hurt the economy or further economic decline. They decidedly help it as long as they don't get access to the social welfare system. The United States had essentially open borders for 130 years.