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

[HOLLYWOOD]

Judge Nap... calls Obama out per the laws of this country. Unfortunately, Washington DC has become lawless.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WLAx_3uE4M

[qh4dotcom]

If the Judge thinks Obama should enforce the draconian immigration laws, then he is not a true libertarian at all and has forgotten what the Declaration of Independence says.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
---------------
Seems pretty clear to me....ALL MEN have the right to pursue happiness...that means every immigrant who came to this country including the "illegal" ones...they are all exercising their God-given right to pursue happiness by immigrating to this country. Let the Churches, charity, family members, employers, etc. deal with them...maybe they will find their happiness there.

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

[fisharmor]

Oh FFS, seriously?
Judge Nap seriously misquoted the US Constitution?

Judge Nap: "He has blatantly ignored his oath, his obligation faithfully to uphold the laws. The reason the word 'faithfully' is in there is because the framers who wrote the oath - it's in the Constitution, the presidental oath - where afraid the presidents would only enforce the laws they agreed with and not enforce the laws they disagreed with, and that's what Preident Obama has done."

Let's take a look at that oath.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

1) It does not require the president that he will swear to faithfully uphold laws. It requires him to swear to faithfully execute the office of the President.
2) It does require him to swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
3) At no point does Judge Nap explain how the immigration laws are constitutional.
4) Unless and until someone can make a coherent argument as to the constitutionality of the immigration laws despite the clear meaning of the 10th Amendment, Obama is actually faithfully executing his office by ignoring them.

I still don't get it!!!!! I know Judge Nap is an intelligent human being and he obviously knows the Constitution.

What the ever living fuck is it about anti-immigration people that makes them completely and hopelessly unable to read, parse, process, and understand simple English sentences?

[LibertyEagle]

If the Judge thinks Obama should enforce the draconian immigration laws, then he is not a true libertarian at all and has forgotten what the Declaration of Independence says.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
---------------
Seems pretty clear to me....ALL MEN have the right to pursue happiness...that means every immigrant who came to this country including the "illegal" ones...they are all exercising their God-given right to pursue happiness by immigrating to this country. Let the Churches, charity, family members, employers, etc. deal with them...maybe they will find their happiness there.

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

There you go again. lol

Nope. You are wrong. In fact our Founding Fathers were very wary of immigration from nations that did not share their culture and values.


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.”

Alexander Hamilton was even more blunt. He invited his fellow Americans to consider the example of another people who had been more generous with their immigration policy than prudence dictated: the American Indians. Hamilton wrote, “Prudence requires us to trace the history further and ask what has become of the nations of savages who exercised this policy, and who now occupies the territory which they then inhabited? Perhaps a lesson is here taught which ought not to be despised.”

Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength. The safety of a republic, according to him, depended “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.” He then drew out the implications of this point: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

George Washington contended in a 1794 letter to John Adams that there was no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration, “except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.” He continued: “The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”

http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

ILLEGAL ALIENS are equal, yes. They are "equal" in their own nations.

[AuH20]

Maria is on Fox Business now?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbJxMd3Pls8

[fisharmor]

ILLEGAL ALIENS are equal, yes. They are "equal" in their own nations.

If this is the case, then rights come from the state, and are therefore not rights.

[GunnyFreedom]

Oh FFS, seriously?
Judge Nap seriously misquoted the US Constitution?

Judge Nap: "He has blatantly ignored his oath, his obligation faithfully to uphold the laws. The reason the word 'faithfully' is in there is because the framers who wrote the oath - it's in the Constitution, the presidental oath - where afraid the presidents would only enforce the laws they agreed with and not enforce the laws they disagreed with, and that's what Preident Obama has done."

Let's take a look at that oath.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

1) It does not require the president that he will swear to faithfully uphold laws. It requires him to swear to faithfully execute the office of the President.
2) It does require him to swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
3) At no point does Judge Nap explain how the immigration laws are constitutional.
4) Unless and until someone can make a coherent argument as to the constitutionality of the immigration laws despite the clear meaning of the 10th Amendment, Obama is actually faithfully executing his office by ignoring them.

I still don't get it!!!!! I know Judge Nap is an intelligent human being and he obviously knows the Constitution.

What the ever living fuck is it about anti-immigration people that makes them completely and hopelessly unable to read, parse, process, and understand simple English sentences?

In Article 2, Section 1 is definition and method of selection, Section 2 is powers, and Section 3 is duties. Under the duties of the President in Article 2 Section 3, the second to last clause, "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," confers this duty upon the President. If he is President, and he is upholding his oath, then he has a duty to enforce those laws that he believes are Constitutional, whether he likes them or not.

A law that he personally feels is unconstitutional is another matter entirely. He would be bound by duty to not enforce that one. But that is not what is being covered here. Obama is not arguing the law's unconstitutionality, therefore per the Constitution he has a duty as President to enforce it.

[LibertyEagle]

If this is the case, then rights come from the state, and are therefore not rights.

I didn't say that at all. Nice try though.

[qh4dotcom]

In Article 2, Section 1 is definition and method of selection, Section 2 is powers, and Section 3 is duties. Under the duties of the President in Article 2 Section 3, the second to last clause, "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," confers this duty upon the President. If he is President, and he is upholding his oath, then he has a duty to enforce those laws that he believes are Constitutional, whether he likes them or not.

A law that he personally feels is unconstitutional is another matter entirely. He would be bound by duty to not enforce that one. But that is not what is being covered here. Obama is not arguing the law's unconstitutionality, therefore per the Constitution he has a duty as President to enforce it.

and how do you know he doesn't personally feel the immigration laws are unconstitutional? If a law is unconstitutional and he is bound by duty to not enforce it as you say....why would he have to publicly argue it is unconstitutional? Why can't he keep his mouth shut about it and not enforce it?

[qh4dotcom]

I didn't say that at all. Nice try though.

That is what you implied...immigrants are equal in other nations but not in the United States....so their unalienable rights do not apply in the US, only in their home countries. Nice try though. By the way, the Declaration of Independence says All men are created equal...it doesn't say all men are created equal in their home countries.

[Carlybee]

If the Judge thinks Obama should enforce the draconian immigration laws, then he is not a true libertarian at all and has forgotten what the Declaration of Independence says.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
---------------
Seems pretty clear to me....ALL MEN have the right to pursue happiness...that means every immigrant who came to this country including the "illegal" ones...they are all exercising their God-given right to pursue happiness by immigrating to this country. Let the Churches, charity, family members, employers, etc. deal with them...maybe they will find their happiness there.

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


ALL meaning within the context of THIS country. The Declaration of Independence was framed in, of, and for THIS country. Your argument is semantics. Oh but if anyone disagrees they're wrong or not libertarian. Ron Paul..wrong, Judge Nap..wrong. I'll take the word of people who are actually Constitutional scholars...not people on this forum.

[GunnyFreedom]

and how do you know he doesn't personally feel the immigration laws are unconstitutional? If a law is unconstitutional and he is bound by duty to not enforce it as you say....why would he have to publicly argue it is unconstitutional? Why can't he keep his mouth shut about it and not enforce it?

You don't seriously believe that Obama has some kind of secret hidden agenda to obey the Constitution and then not tell anybody about it do you?

[LibertyEagle]

That is what you implied...immigrants are equal in other nations but not in the United States....so their unalienable rights do not apply in the US, only in their home countries. Nice try though. By the way, the Declaration of Independence says All men are created equal...it doesn't say all men are created equal in their home countries.

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

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

[fisharmor]

ALL meaning within the context of THIS country. The Declaration of Independence was framed in, of, and for THIS country. Your argument is semantics. Oh but if anyone disagrees they're wrong or not libertarian. Ron Paul..wrong, Judge Nap..wrong. I'll take the word of people who are actually Constitutional scholars...not people on this forum.

I don't understand how you two can argue this with a straight face.
You're repeating exactly what LE said: that whether or not a person is equal is contingent on what side of an imaginary line in the sand he stands on.
Whereas the state is the arbiter of where that imaginary line in the sand is,
therefore the state decides who is equal and who is not,
and therefore the state decides who has rights and who does not,
and therefore rights do not exist.

I am not saying this. You and LE are. You cannot support equal rights for all of humanity and then say that this is contingent on them staying in a particular area.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

For someone who fancies himself as a borderline anarchist, I'm disappointed in Napolitano for taking this position.

[Carlybee]

I don't understand how you two can argue this with a straight face.
You're repeating exactly what LE said: that whether or not a person is equal is contingent on what side of an imaginary line in the sand he stands on.
Whereas the state is the arbiter of where that imaginary line in the sand is,
therefore the state decides who is equal and who is not,
and therefore the state decides who has rights and who does not,
and therefore rights do not exist.

I am not saying this. You and LE are. You cannot support equal rights for all of humanity and then say that this is contingent on them staying in a particular area.

Our Constitution applies to this country and it's citizens. Either you believe it is the rule of law or you don't. If you don't them obviously nothing contained therein is going to mean anything to you.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

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

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

Guys like Jefferson were well-versed in the political theories of the Enlightenment and did not think of rights as being confined one side of an arbitrary line, but as being held by ALL human beings because rights are NATURAL.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Our Constitution applies to this country and it's citizens. Either you believe it is the rule of law or you don't. If you don't them obviously nothing contained therein is going to mean anything to you.

And where in the Constitution does it explicitly state that the federal government has the power to dictate immigration policy?

[RonPaulMall]

For someone who fancies himself as a borderline anarchist, I'm disappointed in Napolitano for taking this position.

Many anarcho-capitalists, including myself (and Ron Paul too for that matter), agree with Hans-Hermann Hoppe's position that current immigration law amounts to nothing more than forced integration meant to destroy the middle class and empower the corporate and government elites. The Open Borders crowd is more associated with the Cosmotratians over at Reason and the Koch Brothers strand of libertarianism.

[qh4dotcom]

I don't understand how you two can argue this with a straight face.
You're repeating exactly what LE said: that whether or not a person is equal is contingent on what side of an imaginary line in the sand he stands on.
Whereas the state is the arbiter of where that imaginary line in the sand is,
therefore the state decides who is equal and who is not,
and therefore the state decides who has rights and who does not,
and therefore rights do not exist.

I am not saying this. You and LE are. You cannot support equal rights for all of humanity and then say that this is contingent on them staying in a particular area.

Absolutely....LE and Carlybee are statists, not libertarians.

Let's say a pregnant woman is standing on the US-Mexico border and is about to give birth....if she takes a step to the north and the baby is born on US soil.........LE and Carlybee would say the baby is born with the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence endowed by their Creator including the right to pursue happiness.

If the pregnant woman takes a step to the south and the baby is born in Mexico......LE and Carlybee would say the baby is NOT born with the unalienable rights endowed by their Creator including the right to pursue happiness....instead they are born with whatever rights the Mexican state/govt/Constitution grants them. Like fisharmor said...the state gets to decide who has rights and who doesn't.

That is how ridiculous their geographical argument is about where people have rights apply and where they don't.

[LibertyEagle]

Absolutely....LE and Carlybee are statists, not libertarians.

Let's say a pregnant woman is standing on the US-Mexico border and is about to give birth....if she takes a step to the north and the baby is born on US soil.........LE and Carlybee would say the baby is born with the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence endowed by their Creator including the right to pursue happiness.

If the pregnant woman takes a step to the south and the baby is born in Mexico......LE and Carlybee would say the baby is NOT born with the unalienable rights endowed by their Creator including the right to pursue happiness....instead they are born with whatever rights the Mexican state/govt/Constitution grants them. Like fisharmor said...the state gets to decide who has rights and who doesn't.

That is how ridiculous their geographical argument is about where people have rights apply and where they don't.

I believe in national sovereignty. Just like Ron Paul.

Be careful of your labels. Because you sure are sounding like an advocate of one world government.

[qh4dotcom]

Our Constitution applies to this country and it's citizens. Either you believe it is the rule of law or you don't. If you don't them obviously nothing contained therein is going to mean anything to you.

You really believe in the rule of law? You must be a statist then



Of course, the statist would say, “Jacob, the law is the law. People have to obey the law.”

Really? Wasn’t segregation the law? Wasn’t slavery the law? Wasn’t apartheid the law? Didn’t the law require the round-ups of Jews in Nazi Germany?

When man’s laws violate God’s laws, man’s laws become null and void and are not deserving of respect or compliance.


http://fff.org/2014/06/25/catholics-libertarians-and-immigration/


CATHOLICS, LIBERTARIANS, AND IMMIGRATION
by Jacob G. Hornberger
June 25, 2014
This week, I have been focusing on why Catholics who wish to remain true to Christian principles should be libertarians rather than statists. This series of articles is in response to an conference recently held at the Catholic University of America entitled “Erroneous Authority: The Catholic Case Against Libertarianism.”

In the first two segments of this series, I focused on two areas — charity and drug laws — to show that libertarianism is consistent with Christian principles and that statism is contrary to Christian principles.

Today, I wish to focus on immigration, another area in which the state, with the full support of statists, is actively engaged in violating God’s laws, thereby once again placing Catholics (and other Christians) into having to choose between pursuing God’s laws or Caesar’s laws.

As Thomas Jefferson pointed out in the Declaration of Independence, every person has been endowed with certain fundamental, inherent rights that pre-exist government. These natural, God-given rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These rights necessarily include sustaining one’s life through labor and exchange, improving one’s economic lot in life as well as that of his family, traveling and moving with the aim of bettering one’s life, entering into mutually beneficial economic transactions with others, accumulating the fruits of one’s earnings, and deciding for one’s self what to do with his own money.

What the state does with immigration controls is infringe on those fundamental, God-given rights. Caesar — the organized means of coercion and compulsion we know as the state — says:

We prohibit you from exercising your inherent, fundamental, God-given rights unless you come to us first and seek official permission to exercise them. If you cross into the United States without our permission and seek to better your life by accepting a job from a willing American employer, we will come after you with the full force of the U.S. government. We will raid private businesses and arrest you, incarcerate you, fine you, and deport you. If you resist arrest, we will put you down.

So, for decades the federal government has abused and mistreated people whose “crime” has been to exercise the fundamental God-given rights to which Jefferson referred — freedom of movement, freedom of travel, freedom of trade, freedom of association, and economic liberty.

That’s what immigration controls do. There is no way to avoid it, no matter what immigration “reform” is adopted. After all, let’s not forget that decade after decade has been filled with all sorts of immigration “reforms” and that immigrants are being treated worse than ever. People are still being deported, families are still being separated, immigrants are still being mistreated and abused, and they’re still dying on lonely deserts or in the back of 18-wheelers.

I ask you a very simple question: How in the world is it possible to reconcile the statists’ war on immigrants with God’s second-greatest commandment: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself?

Answer: It cannot be. Immigration controls, along with the arrests, searches, seizures, raids, jails, fines, and deportations that come with them, constitute a direct violation of God’s second-greatest commandment.

And don’t forget what Jesus said: The second-greatest commandment is just like the first: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Thus, when one abuses and mistreats immigrants or supports their abuse and mistreatment, isn’t that an accurate reflection of how the abuser feels toward God and, for that matter, toward himself?

That’s the statist position on immigration — waging war against peaceful people who are simply trying to better their lives, help their families, and pursue happiness by offering their labor services to others who are willing to pay for them.

I also can’t help but think about the following passage from Matthew:

For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger and you took me not in: naked and you covered me not: sick and in prison and you did not visit me.

Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to thee?

Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen: I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

Given the negative mindset and attitude that statists have toward immigrants, how can any Catholic in good conscience be a statist?

Of course, the statist would say, “Jacob, the law is the law. People have to obey the law.”

Really? Wasn’t segregation the law? Wasn’t slavery the law? Wasn’t apartheid the law? Didn’t the law require the round-ups of Jews in Nazi Germany?

When man’s laws violate God’s laws, man’s laws become null and void and are not deserving of respect or compliance.

What is the libertarian position on immigration? It’s the position that is consistent with Christian principles. Open the borders to the free movements of people. Leave people free to exercise their God-given rights to travel, move, better their lives, go to work for others, open businesses, and engage in any other peaceful actions by which people pursue happiness in their own way.

Thus, the question once again naturally arises: Given that statism violates Christian principles and given that libertarianism is consistent with Christian principles, how in the world can a Catholic who wishes to remain true to the words of Our Lord be anything but a libertarian? Why would any Catholic who wants to pursue God’s laws choose to be a statist?

[LibertyEagle]

Guys like Jefferson were well-versed in the political theories of the Enlightenment and did not think of rights as being confined one side of an arbitrary line, but as being held by ALL human beings because rights are NATURAL.

Arbitrary line?

This is what Jefferson actually said.


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.”

[LibertyEagle]

You really believe in the rule of law? You must be a statist then

lol.

Sounds like you realize you lost the argument. :D

[qh4dotcom]

lol.

Sounds like you realize you lost the argument. :D

LOL....I didn't lose because you didn't reply to any of the arguments on the article I posted. I guess you didn't even read it.

[Carlybee]

And where in the Constitution does it explicitly state that the federal government has the power to dictate immigration policy?

The word immigration is not used but it falls under the naturalization clause.

Amendment 14, Section 1 – “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Amendment 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to establish a Rule of Naturalization.

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. From the site Things that are not in the Constitution.

[LibertyEagle]

LOL....I didn't lose because you didn't reply to any of the arguments on the article I posted. I guess you didn't even read it.

Nope, because your stated premise was that I was a Catholic.

I'm not.

Thus, failed argument..

:)

[Carlybee]

Absolutely....LE and Carlybee are statists, not libertarians.

Let's say a pregnant woman is standing on the US-Mexico border and is about to give birth....if she takes a step to the north and the baby is born on US soil.........LE and Carlybee would say the baby is born with the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence endowed by their Creator including the right to pursue happiness.

If the pregnant woman takes a step to the south and the baby is born in Mexico......LE and Carlybee would say the baby is NOT born with the unalienable rights endowed by their Creator including the right to pursue happiness....instead they are born with whatever rights the Mexican state/govt/Constitution grants them. Like fisharmor said...the state gets to decide who has rights and who doesn't.

That is how ridiculous their geographical argument is about where people have rights apply and where they don't.


So tell me Butthead, where did I claim to be a libertarian? I don't define myself with a label. I determine which ideology makes sense and feels right to me. Feel free to box yourself in but you know nothing about me other than what you have decided based on a few posts on the internet. I'm not interested in your libertarian chest thumping that sounds like it came from a 12 year old who just read his first Bastiat quote. Piss off.

[LibertyEsq]

I'm going to have to agree with LE on this one. If we had no income tax and no welfare, then open borders would make sense. But forcing U.S. citizens to pay income tax for procedures, benefits, etc., and then supplying non-citizens with said procedures and benefits before they pay any income tax doesn't sound like "Equal treatment under the law" to me.

[qh4dotcom]

I'm going to have to agree with LE on this one. If we had no income tax and no welfare, then open borders would make sense. But forcing U.S. citizens to pay income tax for procedures, benefits, etc., and then supplying non-citizens with said procedures and benefits before they pay any income tax doesn't sound like "Equal treatment under the law" to me.

Agreed....but you forgot that there are plenty of organizations such as churches, charity, etc willing to care for the newly arrived immigrants who are not permitted to do so...thousands of Guatemalan children have been adopted in the US....family members already in the US want to care for them....so it's not like they have to become a burden on the taxpayer.

[fisharmor]

This is what Jefferson actually said.

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


The word immigration is not used but it falls under the naturalization clause.
I've been over this with you and I know you have some sort of block that prevents you from processing this, so this is for everyone else.

Immigration is not naturalization.
Naturalization is not immigration.

Mankind doesn't just invent words for the hell of it. We generally come up with words to express different concepts.
It's true there's such a thing as a synonym. But immigration is not a synonym of naturalization. To suggest this would be disingenuous - to state it outright is to engage in falsehood.

They are distinct words with distinct meanings.

I don't need a constitutional professor to convince me what words mean. I would pity those who do, if they weren't also actively trying to shackle me by it.

[Carlybee]

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


I've been over this with you and I know you have some sort of block that prevents you from processing this, so this is for everyone else.

Immigration is not naturalization.
Naturalization is not immigration.

Mankind doesn't just invent words for the hell of it. We generally come up with words to express different concepts.
It's true there's such a thing as a synonym. But immigration is not a synonym of naturalization. To suggest this would be disingenuous - to state it outright is to engage in falsehood.

They are distinct words with distinct meanings.

I don't need a constitutional professor to convince me what words mean. I would pity those who do, if they weren't also actively trying to shackle me by it.

Yet you have no problem shackling anyone else with the cost of it. Legal immigrants generally pay their way, illegal immigrants do not. I don't want to pay for them and it is being done in order TO increase the police state. The more people they will justify to have more swat teams, more militarized police, more prisons, more government in our states and towns. I am at ground zero..I see it happening.

[fisharmor]

Yet you have no problem shackling anyone else with the cost of it.

I stated numerous times in the other thread and many others that this is simply not true.
If people like you and LE would shift gears and focus on elimination of the welfare state, we may be able to do something about it.
The five of us - you, me, LE, qh4, and NIU - would be united in that goal. The only argument would be about how fast to do it.

As for me, I oppose you on immigration for the reasons I have clearly and repeatedly stated.
You are objectively wrong in your interpretation of the constitution, shown by the plain meaning of its words, and by twisting its meaning you are engaging in the same thought process that gave us every other federal ill we currently suffer under.

I will not support you in your crusade against immigrants, and I will continue to speak out against it. When you choose to focus on it instead of the welfare state, you are undertaking an effort doomed to failure. Indeed, by ignoring the root cause of the issue and focusing on the proximate problem, you and LE are SUPPORTING the welfare state by failing to attack it.

[Carlybee]

I stated numerous times in the other thread and many others that this is simply not true.
If people like you and LE would shift gears and focus on elimination of the welfare state, we may be able to do something about it.
The five of us - you, me, LE, qh4, and NIU - would be united in that goal. The only argument would be about how fast to do it.

As for me, I oppose you on immigration for the reasons I have clearly and repeatedly stated.
You are objectively wrong in your interpretation of the constitution, shown by the plain meaning of its words, and by twisting its meaning you are engaging in the same thought process that gave us every other federal ill we currently suffer under.

I will not support you in your crusade against immigrants, and I will continue to speak out against it. When you choose to focus on it instead of the welfare state, you are undertaking an effort doomed to failure. Indeed, by ignoring the root cause of the issue and focusing on the proximate problem, you and LE are SUPPORTING the welfare state by failing to attack it.


Since you continue to put me in a category..ie, "you and LE", I really don't care to have a dialogue with you. I will speak out when I please as well and your words mean nothing because you know that my beef is not with immigration but illegal immigration. You are part of the problem as far as I am concerned. I have spoken out on the welfare state as cause which you willfully ignore, and I disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution. We have no common ground other than agreeing there should be no welfare state, but you think it's okay to add millions to the dole and there we part. finis.

[qh4dotcom]

Legal immigrants generally pay their way, illegal immigrants do not.

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

[Carlybee]

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

Bullcrap. All they have to do is show their stolen documents to human services and they don't even check it half the time. They don't pay any withholding yet get a tax return. I live in a sanctuary city where they can't even be asked their legal status. The ones hiding out are the exception to the rule. I've lived in Texas my entire life, I've known quite a few illegals and I know exactly what they do. No one is disputing they pay sales tax, but we are paying their share of a bunch of other stuff. As for legal immigrants, they have to sign affidavits with DHS that they will not apply for entitlements and they go through visa reviews until they become citizens. I can't do anything about the welfare bums already here but I don't have to want to add millions more. And for the record no I do not support DHS even existing and I do support a much more streamlined approach to legal immigration but that is fair to existing citizens.

[hardrightedge]

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

You have no idea what is going on...
There are street shops set up that guide the illegals through every step of the process...They know exactly how to game the system...
Most illegals get welfare, housing, healthcare, and an under-the-table job...

[muh_roads]

Politicians violating their oath. Imagine my shock & awe.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Most illegals get welfare, housing, healthcare, and an under-the-table job...

Source?

[cajuncocoa]

I stated numerous times in the other thread and many others that this is simply not true.
If people like you and LE would shift gears and focus on elimination of the welfare state, we may be able to do something about it.
The five of us - you, me, LE, qh4, and NIU - would be united in that goal. The only argument would be about how fast to do it.

We can multi-task, no? Because the way I see it, we can focus on eliminating the welfare state, but when we start adding thousands (a conservative estimate) to the rolls via unsecured borders, that's going to become more difficult. Political figures will pander to the welfare recipients (as usual) to keep their jobs, and more and more people will continue to vote themselves a portion of your money and mine.

Let me also ask you this: what do you propose should be done to eliminate the welfare state that is not already being done?

[56ktarget]

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

[Zippyjuan]

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

And current spending on border security has doubled over last ten years (Chart is through 2011- FY 2014 has over 21,000 agents- over 18,000 of them on the southern border http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/U.S.%20Border%20Patrol%20Fiscal%20Year%20Staffing% 20Statistics%201992-2013.pdf ).

http://seattletimes.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/opinionnw/files/2014/07/BP-agents.jpg

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/opinionnw/2014/07/14/what-candidates-really-mean-when-they-say-secure-the-border/

[puppetmaster]

Nope, plenty of legal immigrants are on welfare.....while it is true that plenty of illegal immigrants abuse welfare, you forgot that there are plenty who want to remain in the shadows for fear of being deported and are thus therefore fearful of applying for welfare or doing anything else that would expose them....and no one can avoid paying sales taxes or gasoline taxes, not even illegal immigrants. Yes they pay these taxes with welfare dollars. Welfare has to go and along with that the crime will skyrocket so then more police.....merry go round

[Ender]

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

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

That's baloney.

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

[RonPaulMall]

That's baloney.

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

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

[56ktarget]

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

[Bryan]

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

The crime is trespassing.

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

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

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

[LibertyEagle]

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



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

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

[Antischism]

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

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

Oh. (http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/vpgoem/andrew-napolitano)

Wait, but...

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

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

...OH.

[qh4dotcom]

The crime is trespassing.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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