A Question about Governors not having any power re: Syrian immigration

[erowe1]

Philosophically speaking, I couldn't agree with you more, Erowe. However, that is NOT going to h.a.p.p.e.n.!

But the question is what should be done. And that's the answer. The closer we get to that the better. It makes no sense to say, "The government is going to be involved. Therefore I support keeping it that way."

Given that there exist individuals and private organizations in every state that would like to be able to bring refugees here and help them, why would you positively support having any government at either the state or federal level stop them from doing that?

[helmuth_hubener]

The states have no power really other than non-cooperation to stop refugees from being placed here.

And Superman has no power, really, other than to stop bullets, turn back time, shoot lasers from his eyes, and fly.

Look, this is all the power! If a state is serious about rejecting these entitlement-minded dole-seeking rejects, they will absolutely be able to reject them. The feds will almost certainly not be able to force them to accept them. The feds rely on the states. It's just like the marijuana laws. The feds are a paper tiger in regards to this stuff. They are spread too thin to be able to enforce all their wishes on uncooperative states.

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't understand why just about every discussion on this forum has to be a strictly philosophical debate, which virtually produces nothing substantial that can actually be disseminated into public opinion.

Can we hammer this out using the cards we are dealt at the moment? Or are we just going to continue on and on about Utopian belief systems?

Yes, Deb! Yes, it's time we got realistic. Realism wins. If we care at all about winning, we need to look at the whole picture. To become even smarter. To not just be narrow experts on the application of the NAP and libertarian principles, but on all aspects of society-building, civilization-dynamics, family-strengthening, and even human biology.

I don't know about you, but I hate losing. I hate it. I really want to see liberty succeed. Being right isn't good enough. It is essential, but it isn't good enough. We need to win. We need to crush these buggers. And that means being realistic.

Reality only responds to realistic action. We can only have any hope of changing reality by seeing things realistically.

[fisharmor]

I'd like someone with expertise on the Constitution to explain to me how it is that the 10th amendment doesn't apply where immigrants are concerned. I get that the fedgov is in control of naturalization. But again, naturalization and immigration are not the same thing.

What "expertise" are you looking for? I can read at an above 11th grade level, and I can look up the definition of words.

The only reason you need an "expert" is if you're looking for someone who is capable of dazzling people with enough bull$#@! to make it sound like the text says the exact opposite of what the words mean on their surface.

[fisharmor]

I don't know about you, but I hate losing. I hate it.

[Deborah K]

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President

Oddly enough, I don't see that phrase as vague. It states "of said Office". Powers and duties devolve on the Vice President "of said Office".

On a side note, coincidently, I am related to all three Harrisons on my Mother's Father's side. Benjamin Harrison the DoI signatory, William Henry (who died in office, embarrassingly because of a ridiculously long inauguration speech during foul weather), and the 23rd President Benjamin Harrison.

[helmuth_hubener]

I'd like someone with expertise on the Constitution to explain to me how it is that the 10th amendment doesn't apply where immigrants are concerned. I get that the fedgov is in control of naturalization. But again, naturalization and immigration are not the same thing.

Look, the answer is that it clearly does apply. All the states are at perfect liberty to restrict entry into their states as much as they like, and even to expel unwanted people. And, in fact, there is ample precedent of states doing exactly that throughout early American history.

[Deborah K]

What "expertise" are you looking for? I can read at an above 11th grade level, and I can look up the definition of words.

The only reason you need an "expert" is if you're looking for someone who is capable of dazzling people with enough bull$#@! to make it sound like the text says the exact opposite of what the words mean on their surface.

Are you a mind reader now? By expert I mean someone who has the historical knowledge and is well read on the original intent. I don't know about you, but most of the Federalist Papers are dry reading for me. If someone who has studied them and other related documents and letters of the Founding can give insight and refer to specific statements, etc., I'm open to learning. Unlike many on this forum, I'm not quite so egotistical that I'm unwilling to take opportunities to learn more.

[Deborah K]

But the question is what should be done. And that's the answer. The closer we get to that the better. It makes no sense to say, "The government is going to be involved. Therefore I support keeping it that way."

Given that there exist individuals and private organizations in every state that would like to be able to bring refugees here and help them, why would you positively support having any government at either the state or federal level stop them from doing that?

Can you please stay on task? I never stated: "The government is going to be involved. Therefore I support keeping it that way."

Again:

Can we hammer this out using the cards we are dealt at the moment? Or are we just going to continue on and on about Utopian belief systems?

Put another way, let's look at how the fedgov is handling this and dig into how they justify it via the Constitution, and whether or not the governors have 10th amendment protection. As far as I can tell, the issue lies in how the term "naturalization" is and has been interpreted. Fisharmor alluded to this earlier.

[Deborah K]

Look, the answer is that it clearly does apply. All the states are at perfect liberty to restrict entry into their states as much as they like, and even to expel unwanted people. And, in fact, there is ample precedent of states doing exactly that throughout early American history.

Then why is the media proclaiming that the Governors have no power?

[Deborah K]

Yes, Deb! Yes, it's time we got realistic. Realism wins. If we care at all about winning, we need to look at the whole picture. To become even smarter. To not just be narrow experts on the application of the NAP and libertarian principles, but on all aspects of society-building, civilization-dynamics, family-strengthening, and even human biology.

I don't know about you, but I hate losing. I hate it. I really want to see liberty succeed. Being right isn't good enough. It is essential, but it isn't good enough. We need to win. We need to crush these buggers. And that means being realistic.

Reality only responds to realistic action. We can only have any hope of changing reality by seeing things realistically.

I agree with you HB. Our struggle is in how to go about winning. That has always been the case. I want to figure out how to beat them at their own game.

[Contumacious]

Which is why I wrote earlier that immigration and naturalization are two different animals.

They ARE two different animals

Let's review SCOTUS case


BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)


[ 143 U.S. Page 159]


In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in

[ 143 U.S. Page 160]

which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character."

[Deborah K]

Do you apply this same reasoning to immigration in general? The federal government shouldn't be involved in restricting it at all?

I basically think the states should have more pull when it comes to most things. The less the fedgov is involved in matters, the better. I do think a uniform naturalization process is a good plan however. But again, we're talking two different animals here.

[Deborah K]

They ARE two different animals

Let's review SCOTUS case


BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)


[ 143 U.S. Page 159]


In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in

[ 143 U.S. Page 160]

which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character."

+1

[fisharmor]

Are you a mind reader now? By expert I mean someone who has the historical knowledge and is well read on the original intent. I don't know about you, but most of the Federalist Papers are dry reading for me. If someone who has studied them and other related documents and letters of the Founding can give insight and refer to specific statements, etc., I'm open to learning. Unlike many on this forum, I'm not quite so egotistical that I'm unwilling to take opportunities to learn more.

No offense was intended. I think you can see I'm also always willing to learn more.
But you've already rejected reducing this to principle. I think this is where we are butting heads.

I reduce everything to principle because if you don't figure out where your opinion is rooted, you're going to end up rooted in someone else's opinion. I often still do root myself in other people's opinions. But I acknowledge that I am doing so - and more importantly, I take the time to learn how it is that they came by that opinion to begin with. I want to know what principle got them to that opinion. If our principles jive then I have little problem going along with it.

I believe you probably do this as well. If you read someone's opinion and it said "We have enough dark people in this country and I'm for doing anything possible to keep them out"... well, one might support that goal, but still find the underlying principle despicable. Thus that argument is not likely to garner many supporters as phrased.

I consider the principle of the thing to be of prime importance because we have seen a minor variation of that exact same argument crop up several times on this forum in the last few weeks. It takes a slightly different form: "I don't believe dark people are capable of understanding liberty so I want to do anything possible to keep them out". But it's the exact same sentiment.

Another slight modification: "I believe it's possible that this boat full of dark people might contain one or two bad eggs, so I want to do anything possible to keep them out." It still reduces to the idea that dark people are bad.

The reason I react negatively to "experts" is because we have all sorts of legal experts and political experts poisoning this argument with their "expertise"... which is to say, they are using a whole lot of words to dazzle us into thinking their argument doesn't basically boil down to "keep the dark people out".

Now to switch contexts back to the constitution: same thing. If we're going to appeal to the constitution, I need to know what the operating principles are before I can form an opinion on what's being discussed. As I pointed out, the operating principles are pretty much universally bad. This makes it very unlikely that I would support a constitutional argument.

Nevertheless, to answer your question directly, yes, as stated, the 10th Amendment applies. Hel and I are in complete agreement.

BUT that is a double-edged sword. In taking that argument, in appealing to the constitution, one necessarily totally removes from the federal government the power to control who comes in, who stays, and who gets kicked out. Goodbye all federal immigration law.

So bringing it back to pragmatism vs. principle... the pragmatic solution here is that the majority of people here like the federal government having the clearly unconstitutional power to control who comes in. None of these governors are making constitutional arguments and reclaiming power over immigration: they're doing this because they don't like how BHO isn't doing it. They're not attacking whether or not he can. They believe he can and indeed they want him to keep these people out.

So the pragmatic solution in this case is.... Trumpism. Create an entirely new "papers please" branch of government. Set up a fence along the entire border. Mandatory anal cavity searches for all flights, even domestic.

Without a clear operating principle, we're stuck with the one everyone else is using - "keep the dark people out". And I don't really see how we can operate under that principle and achieve any victory for liberty, no matter how small.

ETA one more note... I don't place any importance on the Federalist or AntiFederalist papers, at all. For the same reason: just "experts" rambling on trying to get me to expand definitions of something that's already clearly laid out.

[helmuth_hubener]

Then why is the media proclaiming that the Governors have no power?

I cannot read their minds, so cannot say for sure, but I would say it has something to do with the media being almost unanimously leftist and also almost unanimously against limiting third-world immigration -- virulently against it, even the slightest limit.

The fact that the massive third-world immigration the last forty years has exclusively and massively benefited the left may provide a possible clue as to a connection between these two near-unanimous positions. Go figure, leftists like something that helps and advances leftism.

See, the left is realistic. They do know how to interface with reality.

The media is also against the Tenth Amendment as a general rule. They do not think that the Tenth Amendment applies to anything, so of course it doesn't apply to this either. They are likewise opposed to states opting out of ObamaCare, nullifying the FDA (through Right to Try laws spreading like wildfire throughout the states), stating that gun laws don't apply in the state boundaries (Wyoming, Montana, others), and of course legalizing marijuana. All these things the media cried, and still cries, "Oh dear, oh dear, you can't do that!" But actually they can. And they are. And that's exactly what's supposed to happen. That's what James Madison said should happen in the Virginia Resolution and, well, you don't get a higher expert on what the Constitution means than James Madison. If the states don't like what's going down, they are to just pass a law saying "forget that, feddies; here's how it's gonna be in this state." That's what Madison said they should do.

[fisharmor]

That's what James Madison said should happen in the Virginia Resolution and, well, you don't get a higher expert on what the Constitution means than James Madison.

Except for SCOTUS, of course.

If the states don't like what's going down, they are to just pass a law saying "forget that, feddies; here's how it's gonna be in this state." That's what Madison said they should do.

Except none of those laws you mentioned mean "here's how it's gonna be in this state". Those laws all say that the local enforcement of federal rules isn't going to continue. There are still federal raids on people who buck federal law.

The examples you listed are great, I'm all in favor of them. But if states suddenly started mustering deputies (or, God forbid, actual militia) to actively block the execution of raw milk raids, that would be something else entirely.

[jmdrake]

For me, this is one of those situations where I think each state has the right to decide if they want to take the refugees or not. How they go about it is another matter. I just don't think the federal government should have the right to force states to accept these immigrants if they don't want to. And, the Constitution, while it covers naturalization, is vague on the issue of immigration. As I've already stated, they are not the same thing, even though many have tried to conflate them.

Why this case and not others? Why should someone born in Alabama be allowed to cross over the state line to Tennessee if states have the right to restrict immigration to their state?

[jmdrake]

Sorry but that cases doesn't say what you and Deb think it says. The word "immigration" is nowhere in the case. It merely states that just because the U.S. can determine what are the rights and privileges of being a U.S. citizen doesn't mean that states can't limit certain rights and privileges to state citizens. Think "in state tuition" or being granted a drivers license. States should not be forced to give licenses, in state tuition, free public education or anything else to refugees from Syria or to people who have migrated internally from another state. States have a right to decide their own residency requirements for voting or fill-in-the-blank. That doesn't mean states can sit at the border and keep people from traveling across just because. Maybe they can, maybe they can't, but this case that you are quoting just doesn't say that.

They ARE two different animals

Let's review SCOTUS case


BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)


[ 143 U.S. Page 159]


In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in

[ 143 U.S. Page 160]

which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character."

+1

[Contumacious]

Sorry but that cases doesn't say what you and Deb think it says. The word "immigration" is nowhere in the case. It merely states that just because the U.S. can determine what are the rights and privileges of being a U.S. citizen doesn't mean that states can't limit certain rights and privileges to state citizens. Think "in state tuition" or being granted a drivers license. States should not be forced to give licenses, in state tuition, free public education or anything else to refugees from Syria or to people who have migrated internally from another state. States have a right to decide their own residency requirements for voting or fill-in-the-blank. That doesn't mean states can sit at the border and keep people from traveling across just because. Maybe they can, maybe they can't, but this case that you are quoting just doesn't say that.

Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…

Jonathan Swift


FORGET WHAT YOU HAVE READ OR HEARD


ONCE UPON A TIME THE STATES WERE ******SOVEREIGN********


THE STATES RETAINED THE RIGHT TO CONFER THEIR CITIZENSHIP UPON WHOMEVER - MEANING A MINNESSOTA RESIDENT HAS ALL THE RIGHTS IT CAN GRANT BUT SOUTH DAKOTA DOES NOT HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE SAME.


MINNESOTA DID NOT CONFER *******US******* CITIZENSHIP ONLY CONGRESS CAN NATURALIZE CITIZENS


FROM THE CASE


The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.

[erowe1]

Can you please stay on task? I never stated: "The government is going to be involved. Therefore I support keeping it that way."

Again:



Put another way, let's look at how the fedgov is handling this and dig into how they justify it via the Constitution, and whether or not the governors have 10th amendment protection. As far as I can tell, the issue lies in how the term "naturalization" is and has been interpreted. Fisharmor alluded to this earlier.

Staying on task, neither the states nor the federal government should do anything to inhibit refugees from coming here.

Am I mistaken that you have argued that one or both should do that? And am I mistaken that the only argument you have come up with against my claim that they shouldn't is, "That's not going to happen."?

[tod evans]

Staying on task, neither the states nor the federal government should do anything to inhibit refugees from coming here.

Am I mistaken that you have argued that one or both should do that? And am I mistaken that the only argument you have come up with against my claim that they shouldn't is, "That's not going to happen."?

Nor should they encourage them to come with financial incentives, directly or indirectly.

Charity is not work suited to a government.

[Deborah K]

Staying on task, neither the states nor the federal government should do anything to inhibit refugees from coming here.

Am I mistaken that you have argued that one or both should do that? And am I mistaken that the only argument you have come up with against my claim that they shouldn't is, "That's not going to happen."?

You seem to want to have circular philosophical arguments. I'm not interested. I think I've been clear. Reread my posts.

[Deborah K]

Sorry but that cases doesn't say what you and Deb think it says. The word "immigration" is nowhere in the case. It merely states that just because the U.S. can determine what are the rights and privileges of being a U.S. citizen doesn't mean that states can't limit certain rights and privileges to state citizens. Think "in state tuition" or being granted a drivers license. States should not be forced to give licenses, in state tuition, free public education or anything else to refugees from Syria or to people who have migrated internally from another state. States have a right to decide their own residency requirements for voting or fill-in-the-blank. That doesn't mean states can sit at the border and keep people from traveling across just because. Maybe they can, maybe they can't, but this case that you are quoting just doesn't say that.

John, that particular text regarding the ruling and opinion in that case involves State citizenship vs. U.S. Citizenship. In other words, if Texas wanted to admit Mexicans and make them citizens, they could do so, but it wouldn't translate into them becoming U.S. Citizens. As for the word "immigration" not being in the text - use of the word emigrant is in the text when referring to Boyd's father.

[Deborah K]

No offense was intended. I think you can see I'm also always willing to learn more.
But you've already rejected reducing this to principle. I think this is where we are butting heads.

We've always butted heads. But I respect your arguments, they are usually very well laid out. And yes, I reject reducing this to principle. RPFs has many intelligent, knowledgeable and insightful people as members. I've always believed that a better use of the talent here, instead of chaining all debates strictly to ideology, would be to "think tank" issues like this one. We all basically believe the same thing here, and that is individual freedom is precious and should be protected. We just don't agree on how to achieve it. I don't think spending countless hours trying to win arguments on a forum is productive, when the time could be better spent disseminating strategies in the court of public opinion on how to beat The Man at his own game.

Another slight modification: "I believe it's possible that this boat full of dark people might contain one or two bad eggs, so I want to do anything possible to keep them out." It still reduces to the idea that dark people are bad.

This implies that anyone who is against illegal immigration, or immigration that is forced on the states is a racist. I have often used the analogy of Canadians pouring over the northern border at the same rate the Mexicans have done on the southern border. The arguments regarding the problems it causes would remain the same. And Canadians are primarily white so the race card wouldn't factor in. But it does shine a bright light on the real issue, which is the corrupt and/or inept governments from which immigrants flee. People don't leave their countries for better weather - they leave because the conditions (wrought by their governments) are intolerable, in most cases.

Nevertheless, to answer your question directly, yes, as stated, the 10th Amendment applies. Hel and I are in complete agreement.

BUT that is a double-edged sword. In taking that argument, in appealing to the constitution, one necessarily totally removes from the federal government the power to control who comes in, who stays, and who gets kicked out. Goodbye all federal immigration law.

So bringing it back to pragmatism vs. principle... the pragmatic solution here is that the majority of people here like the federal government having the clearly unconstitutional power to control who comes in. None of these governors are making constitutional arguments and reclaiming power over immigration: they're doing this because they don't like how BHO isn't doing it. They're not attacking whether or not he can. They believe he can and indeed they want him to keep these people out.

So the pragmatic solution in this case is.... Trumpism. Create an entirely new "papers please" branch of government. Set up a fence along the entire border. Mandatory anal cavity searches for all flights, even domestic.

Without a clear operating principle, we're stuck with the one everyone else is using - "keep the dark people out". And I don't really see how we can operate under that principle and achieve any victory for liberty, no matter how small.

I don't think the answer has to be an either/or solution. Pragmatism can be rooted in principle. We need to look at the situation realistically, and determine what solution does the best job of keeping freedom in tact. We've inherited a mess. I'm all for workable ideas that solve the issue, and sick of the endless ideological debates.

ETA one more note... I don't place any importance on the Federalist or AntiFederalist papers, at all. For the same reason: just "experts" rambling on trying to get me to expand definitions of something that's already clearly laid out.

The Federalist papers help bring perspective to the Founders' original intent regarding the Constitution. They provide a back-drop. I think they have value in that regard.

[tod evans]

I'm thinking that the first Governor to make a public stand against the feds and not back down is going to win the hearts and minds of the people in his state.

Whether it's this issue or another........

[fisharmor]

We all basically believe the same thing here, and that is individual freedom is precious and should be protected. We just don't agree on how to achieve it.

What about the freedom to cross arbitrary geographical boundaries? That is a freedom that you're manifestly not interested in protecting.
Or is it that we're really only supposed to be interested in protecting the freedom of US citizens?
Pragmatism to me is admitting that it's simply not feasible to protect freedom throughout the world. And pragmatism to me is admitting that we CAN and SHOULD protect freedom within our borders.

This implies that anyone who is against illegal immigration, or immigration that is forced on the states is a racist. I have often used the analogy of Canadians pouring over the northern border at the same rate the Mexicans have done on the southern border. The arguments regarding the problems it causes would remain the same. And Canadians are primarily white so the race card wouldn't factor in.

So you're saying if you replace "Mexicans aren't capable of understanding liberty" with "Canadians aren't capable of understanding liberty", that this somehow changes the rotten nature of that premise?
Race isn't even really a thing. All race is, is a way for people to put other people in groups. Race doesn't really exist. It really doesn't matter to me whether you're collectivizing people because they eat tamales, or Kraft Dinner. Whether you're talking about physical appearance or culture, it's the exact same concept: Those people over there, who are different from us, are intellectually incapable of accepting instruction.

But it does shine a bright light on the real issue, which is the corrupt and/or inept governments from which immigrants flee. People don't leave their countries for better weather - they leave because the conditions (wrought by their governments) are intolerable, in most cases.

Good! Great! So that practically demands that the follow-up question be asked:

How can liberty advocates possibly view this as anything other than fertile ground??????

[helmuth_hubener]

How can liberty advocates possibly view this as anything other than fertile ground?????? [namely converting illegal immigrants from the third world to be small-government advocates and enthusiasts]

Realism.

[Contumacious]

John, that particular text regarding the ruling and opinion in that case involves State citizenship vs. U.S. Citizenship. In other words, if Texas wanted to admit Mexicans and make them citizens, they could do so, but it wouldn't translate into them becoming U.S. Citizens. As for the word "immigration" not being in the text - use of the word emigrant is in the text when referring to Boyd's father.

.

[Deborah K]

What about the freedom to cross arbitrary geographical boundaries? That is a freedom that you're manifestly not interested in protecting.
Or is it that we're really only supposed to be interested in protecting the freedom of US citizens?
Pragmatism to me is admitting that it's simply not feasible to protect freedom throughout the world. And pragmatism to me is admitting that we CAN and SHOULD protect freedom within our borders.[/I]

I will love it when the world gets on board with us and our idea of what freedom looks like. Then, we can cross borders anywhere on earth as freely as we do state lines in our country. But alas, tis not to be borne at this juncture in the history of the human race. Boiling down "crossing geological boundaries" to a microcosm - using the Great Depression as an example - I'm sure you've seen signs like this:



Can you really blame a community, a neighborhood, a family, a nation, for putting their own interests first?

So you're saying if you replace "Mexicans aren't capable of understanding liberty" with "Canadians aren't capable of understanding liberty", that this somehow changes the rotten nature of that premise?

Is that really your interpretation of my stance?? How did you possibly get that from what I have written on the subject thus far?

Race isn't even really a thing. All race is, is a way for people to put other people in groups. Race doesn't really exist. It really doesn't matter to me whether you're collectivizing people because they eat tamales, or Kraft Dinner. Whether you're talking about physical appearance or culture, it's the exact same concept: Those people over there, who are different from us, are intellectually incapable of accepting instruction.

You write that "race isn't really a thing", yet your stance seems drenched in the belief that race is THE excuse for why anyone would be against illegal immigration or forced acceptance of refugees. And I refute your use of the term "collectivizing". It is a pet-peeve of mine when people confuse "collectivism" with "groupism". Collectivism is when a group of people put the group's interests above, and at the expense of, the individual's interest. Governments are prime examples of collectivism.

Good! Great! So that practically demands that the follow-up question be asked:

[I]How can liberty advocates possibly view this as anything other than fertile ground??

The first thing that came to mind when I read this was the phrase: "The Cobbler's children have no shoes." IOW, we really have no business tilling the "fertile ground" of immigrants when there are so many weeds in our own field.