"Rights" do not come from the "Constitution"...

[agitator]

The Chinese military has the right to travel here, all of them. (It's God given)

[fedupinmo]

Serious question.... is illegal immigration trespassing, or should the government not have anything to do with the supply and price curves of labor?

It's invasion. Article IV, Section 4.

[TommyJeff]

You are actually right on both counts but for reasons that I doubt you believe. Why do you say this? What do you believe im missing?

Yes, rights are universal as they come from the Creator and cannot exist differently for men in different parts of the globe... And yes, the "constitution" doesn't apply to an Iraqi citizen just as it doesn't apply to a "US citizen"... If the "constitution" has any authority at all (I don't see that it does) it would only apply to the US goonerment... not to US citizens (or any citizens)...

great point (in bold above). Very well said

[TommyJeff]

Not at all- but it does apply to an Iraqi in the US.

We agree.

I may not have been clear before when saying foreigners. I should have said foreigners on non US soil.

[TommyJeff]

Sure. It limits the powers of the federal government. At least supposedly.

If the federal government stays within its limitations, that protects all people from having their rights violated by it, does it not?

Not when a foreigner is living on non-US soil. I trust you don't believe the US has the authority to tell other countries and other governments what to do.
The limitations are specific to the United States jurisdiction and the people residing there. It isn't a limitation for other governments in other lands.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Serious question.... is illegal immigration trespassing, or should the government not have anything to do with the supply and price curves of labor?

If you believe in "public lands" then the immigrant cannot be "trespassing" on "public lands". Private lands are a different story and anyone who does not have permission would be trespassing whether immigrant or not.

No, goonerment should not have anything to do with labor...

[otherone]

"Rights", as they stand now, are any activity the government approves of.

[ChristianAnarchist]

The Chinese military has the right to travel here, all of them. (It's God given)

Actually I believe this to be true. The issue changes to what they do when they get here. Do they use violence against "the people" or do they take money from the "goonerment" in the form of welfare? Both of these are acts they have no "right" do do and the people have the right to defend themselves against such activity. "The People", if armed, are sufficient to protect against such invasion...

[Superfluous Man]

Serious question.... is illegal immigration trespassing, or should the government not have anything to do with the supply and price curves of labor?

No, illegal immigration is not trespassing.

But the laws that make illegal immigration illegal are trespassing, since they tell Americans who they can and can't have on their own property.

[Superfluous Man]

Not when a foreigner is living on non-US soil. I trust you don't believe the US has the authority to tell other countries and other governments what to do.
The limitations are specific to the United States jurisdiction and the people residing there. It isn't a limitation for other governments in other lands.

Of course it isn't a limitation to other governments. It's a limitation to the federal government. And it doesn't merely limit it in its actions against US citizens.

[fedupinmo]

"Rights", as they stand now, are any activity the government approves of.

By extension and necessity, rights are any activity the people are willing to insist upon and defend. The goob hasn't gotten around to taking the rest yet.

[otherone]

By extension and necessity, rights are any activity the people are willing to insist upon and defend.

Good luck wit dat.

[TommyJeff]

Of course it isn't a limitation to other governments. It's a limitation to the federal government. And it doesn't merely limit it in its actions against US citizens.

I think we agree.

Is it fair to say that you'd agree with me when I say the US constitution in no way relates to a foreigner, hoping to immigrate or set foot on US soil who has not yet passed though customs/the boarder/etc.

[Superfluous Man]

I think we agree.

Is it fair to say that you'd agree with me when I say the US constitution in no way relates to a foreigner, hoping to immigrate or set foot on US soil who has not yet passed though customs/the boarder/etc.

No, that's not fair to say. The Constitution doesn't affect what other governments might do to that person. But it still limits what the US federal government can do. Unless that foreigner is part of an invading army, the Constitution prohibits the federal government from doing anything to impede that foreigner's entry into the US, beyond the collection of duties.

[TommyJeff]

No, that's not fair to say. The Constitution doesn't affect what other governments might do to that person. But it still limits what the US federal government can do. Unless that foreigner is part of an invading army, the Constitution prohibits the federal government from doing anything to impede that foreigner's entry into the US, beyond the collection of duties.

Then are you contending immigration is a state's rights issue?

[Superfluous Man]

Then are you contending immigration is a state's rights issue?

No. Just that it's not a federal issue.

Originally, under the Constitution, some states did exercise some powers attempting to restrict immigration into them, until after a century or so the federal government started arrogating that role to itself (in clear violation of the Constitution and without passing any amendment). But under natural law, the states have no business doing that either. And that's more important than whether or not it's constitutional. An unjust law is no law at all.

[PierzStyx]

That the "immigrants" have rights is not questioned... however the Constitution only binds the gov to defend the rights of its citizens, and sometimes it binds gov to protect the citizen's right at the expense of the foreigner, especially when the foreigner is 9 times out of 10 going to yell for more socialism.
Myself, I would like to see immigration halted until we can get our own liberty back in order, without that extra competition.

The irony is this post is delicious.

First, calling for the sacrifice of rights so the government can violently attack a minority you disapprove of IS socialism. Your actual socialism is far more dangerous than any hypothetical socialist belief a foreigner might hold.

Secondly, the Constitution was not and is not about making the government defend the rights of citizens. It was about defending the rights of the people, citizens or not, FROM the government while using the government as the means to do those things that are more easily done as a group, like negotiate with foreign powers.

Third, you cannot have liberty while denying it to others. The very mechanism you build to deny liberty to others is what is used to deny you your liberty.

[PierzStyx]

What?

Did you mean this?

the constitution of the United States of America protects foreigners?

The Constitution was meant to protect all people within the geographic limits that define the "United States of America" from government violation of those rights. To that end it doesn't matter if you are a citizen of the USA or not. If you live withing the boundaries of the USA then the Constitution protects your rights. It doesn't matter if you are born here or come here from Yemen, the Constitution protects your rights equally. This is based on the understanding that all people have natural rights not based on where they come form but the fact that they are human.

This understanding also helps make sense of the Bill of Rights. Those rights in it aren't government given rights. Rather the document that all people have those rights and the federal government is forbidden to violate them.

[PierzStyx]

Responses in bold.

Well, let me ask you something since you know so much. Does a person who is not an citizen of this country possess the right to come here and be left alone by our government (of, by, and for the people) to pursue his happiness? Whatever it may be. We don't always know, of course. Maybe he gets off on blowing 5 year olds up at school, talking about Allahu Akbar or something sweet like that because, you know, he feels it's his God-given moral responsibility, duty, and natural right. If so, then how?

A person has a natural right to live however they choose and do whatever they want as long as they accept two things: They have to also accept the consequences of their actions and they may not violate the rights of others. This is the very definition of liberty, to live how you choose.

The fact that you "don't know" says everything. See, in America you have to prove that people have committed a crime before you can punish them for it. People like you who imagine up crimes and then violently attack innocent people for your demented delusions are the greater danger to liberty and human safety than any terrorist, foreign or domestic.

Additionally, and given that American citizens delegate their government with Just Powers in order to protect their Individual rights, how would your foreign citizen excercise his right to prohibit American government from bothering him once he is here? While I've read the moral case for unalienable rights, there also exists a responsibility or duty for every right that American citizens (again, whom delegate their government's just powers) have. Which, when broken down, means simply Right-Duty, Feedom-Responsibility, and ultimately this equates to Liberty-Responsibility as an inseparable whole. Share with us your wisdom.

Thank You, PierzStyx.

Where do American citizens delegate anything? I've never been asked to consent to being governed, which Thomas Jefferson stated was essential to having a just government. The will of whatever tyrant occupies the White House has always been forced upon me or you our entire lives. Even if you vote you are not consenting. Consent means both yes or no are equal choices and equally respected outcomes. If you say no and someone forces them self upon you anyway that is rape. If you say no and the government forces itself upon you anyway then it is tyranny.

According to Jefferson there is no "moral case" for inalienable rights. There simply are inalienable rights. It isn't a matter of debate. As Locke argues, reason alone tells us there are inalienable rights. Read his "Two Treatise on Government" if you haven't. He lays it out there quite well. The only duty you have is to be a free human being. What you choose to do with that freedom is up to you.

The question of immigrants living in America being able to consent to their government is no different than how you or I consent to government. It isn't some special problem to be solved. You simply treat them the way all other people are and allow them the same methods of consent all other people do.

[PierzStyx]

Any casual passers-by who may happen across this thread, my advice is to be very careful who you listen to. Some people will have you thinking you're working in favor of the cause of Individual Liberty when you're actually working to forward anarchy/socialism/ or about a half-dozen other isms. And they won't ever tell you otherwise. They'll just turn you loose to spread their bullsht. It's one of the main reasons I don't like people who merely identify as libertarian. Read what they type for five minutes and you'll sure as sht see otherwise if you know what it is that you're actually looking at and understand what they're truly arguing against.

It is easy to tell that you are completely ignorant of liberty. I highly suggest you read the philosophy of liberty that was the foundation of the Declaration of Independence and early American political thought, John Locke's "Two Treatise On Government." If you had you would understand that anarchy IS individual liberty and uniting into a political society, i.e. a government, by necessity means the diminution of individual liberty.

"“To understand political power, we must consider the condition in which nature puts all men. It is a state of perfect freedom to do as they wish and dispose of themselves and their possessions as they think fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature. They need not ask permission or the consent of any other man.
The state of nature is also a state of equality. No one has more power or authority than another. Since all human beings have the same advantages and the use of the same skills, they should be equal to each other. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it. Reason is the law. It teaches that all men are equal and independent, and that no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions. All men are made by one all-powerful and wise Maker. They are all servants of one Master who sent them into the world to do His business. He has put men naturally into a state of independence, and they remain in it until they choose to become members of a political society.”


“If a man in the state of nature is free, if he is absolute lord of his own person and possessions, why will he give up his freedom? Why will he put himself under the control of any person or institution? The obvious answer is that the rights in the state of nature are constantly exposed to the attacks of others. Since every man is equal and since most men do not concern themselves with equity and justice, the enjoyment of rights in the state of nature is unsafe and insecure. Hence each man joins in society with others to preserve life, liberty, and property.”

Notice that Locke's idea of government is one that is completely voluntary too.

“Since men hope to preserve their property by establishing a government, they will not want that government to destroy this objective. When legislators (lawmakers) try to destroy or take away the property of the people, or try to reduce them to slavery, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who can then refuse to obey the laws. When legislators try to gain or give someone else absolute power over lives, liberties, and property of the people, they abuse the power which the people had put into their hands. It is then the privilege of the people to establish a new legislature to provide for their safety and security. These principles also hold true for the executive who helps to make laws and carry them out.”


The original text of the Constitution clearly says We The People. The Constitution is a document FOR the United States. Not Of. This distinction is very, very important to recognize as the tail tries to wag the dog. And what we are seeing more and more these days, mainly in places like this when the anarchsts start popping off, is people argue against the constitution in a way that projects the notion that the document was written OF the United States of America while completely ignoring (likely they don't even know) that It was written FOR We The People of the United States of America. Nobody else.

Sure, Lincoln. Except the third quote above from Locke already destroys this argument. But honestly, your argument is so bad the Constitution itself destroys it. Quoting from the Preamble of the US Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."

The Constitution literally says it is of the people. Further your last bit in which you try to argue that the Constitution doesn't cover anybody but however you define "people" is just stupid. There was no nation known as the United States of America before the Constitution. There was a confederacy of thirteen independent nation-states that refereed to itself as the united States of America. Therefore no one making the Constitution could actually be talking as citizens of the USA because it did not exist. Your argument is truly completely unhinged form historical reality.

[Superfluous Man]

the Constitution only binds the gov to defend the rights of its citizens, and sometimes it binds gov to protect the citizen's right at the expense of the foreigner, especially when the foreigner is 9 times out of 10 going to yell for more socialism.

Could you please cite the specific part of the Constitution you are talking about here?

[fedupinmo]

The irony is this post is delicious.

First, calling for the sacrifice of rights so the government can violently attack a minority you disapprove of IS socialism. Your actual socialism is far more dangerous than any hypothetical socialist belief a foreigner might hold.

Secondly, the Constitution was not and is not about making the government defend the rights of citizens. It was about defending the rights of the people, citizens or not, FROM the government while using the government as the means to do those things that are more easily done as a group, like negotiate with foreign powers.

Third, you cannot have liberty while denying it to others. The very mechanism you build to deny liberty to others is what is used to deny you your liberty.

We, the people of the... whole $#@!ing world? No, wait... that's not it.
And what minority are you speaking of? 320,000,000 versus what, 5.7 billion or so?
We can wage war on others, depriving them of life; and they have a right to life if we do.
We can also tell who we wish to stay out, if they will damage our liberty or way of life.
Human respect demands certain things, but vital necessity sometimes overrules.
There is no need to rush to globalism, and no need to unAmerica this place to respect other cultures over our own. The Constitution nowhere demands we hand everything over to foreigners either.
All we have gained by bringing in just anyone is less liberty and less security and yes, more socialism so we can give them a leg up where once an immigrant had to "melt" to survive. How would Benny feel about sacrificing both to gain neither, I wonder?

[fedupinmo]

"...the Constitution only binds the gov to defend the rights of its citizens, and sometimes it binds gov to protect the citizen's right at the expense of the foreigner, especially when the foreigner is 9 times out of 10 going to yell for more socialism."

Could you please cite the specific part of the Constitution you are talking about here?

Have you read the thing?
A foreigner can't be a Senator, Representative, President, Vice President... There is Declaration of War, punishment of piracy and offenses against the law of nations, all deprivation of some right or another in favor of the rights of the citizens.
Being a nation is juggling the rights of one's own with the rights of everybody else, and in your own favor.

[Ender]

Sure, Lincoln. Except the third quote above from Locke already destroys this argument. But honestly, your argument is so bad the Constitution itself destroys it. Quoting from the Preamble of the US Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."

The Constitution literally says it is of the people. Further your last bit in which you try to argue that the Constitution doesn't cover anybody but however you define "people" is just stupid. There was no nation known as the United States of America before the Constitution. There was a confederacy of thirteen independent nation-states that refereed to itself as the united States of America. Therefore no one making the Constitution could actually be talking as citizens of the USA because it did not exist. Your argument is truly completely unhinged form historical reality.

Actually it was the united States of America originally, which recognized each state's individuality and power, working together in common law. It became the United States of America after Lincoln, a corporate entity designed to be The Boss.

[Superfluous Man]

Have you read the thing?
A foreigner can't be a Senator, Representative, President, Vice President... There is Declaration of War, punishment of piracy and offenses against the law of nations, all deprivation of some right or another in favor of the rights of the citizens.

Running for those offices isn't a natural right though. And I don't see how the other things you mentioned have anything to do with the topic. In mentioning them, I don't believe the Constitution refers to citizenship at all. Does it?

Is that all you were talking about?

Being a nation is juggling the rights of one's own with the rights of everybody else, and in your own favor.

What a strange definition of nationhood. Where did you get it?

[Natural Citizen]

My friend, you're way too far out of your league to be making the statements you just made. I think you're just too prideful in your ignorance to know that you are. And, observably, you're equally as aggressive in misinterpreting our documents and history in order to gather support for your cause of anarchy.

Here - Learn, dummy. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6197351

I should neg your silly ass for being purposefully dishonest about history and the tenor of our founding documents. But I think you truly have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think you're very well read. And if you are, then you're more likely reading the wrong books. Probably th ones which make you feel good about your own anarchist worldview. Which makes you dangerous to those who read your pablum and don't know any better about what you're actually promoting from behind the shroud of Individual Liberty.

Sure, Lincoln. Except the third quote above from Locke already destroys this argument. But honestly, your argument is so bad the Constitution itself destroys it. Quoting from the Preamble of the US Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."

The Constitution literally says it is of the people. Further your last bit in which you try to argue that the Constitution doesn't cover anybody but however you define "people" is just stupid. There was no nation known as the United States of America before the Constitution. There was a confederacy of thirteen independent nation-states that refereed to itself as the united States of America. Therefore no one making the Constitution could actually be talking as citizens of the USA because it did not exist. Your argument is truly completely unhinged form historical reality.

End of the day, Americans are equal, not only by their creator, but in sight of the law. But that's you're problem isn't it? The latter. Want to be a cowboy, do ya?

At least the Anti-Federalists put up a logical argument. Bu you're not one of them. You're something else entirely.

[ChristianAnarchist]

The Constitution was meant to protect all people within the geographic limits that define the "United States of America" from government violation of those rights. To that end it doesn't matter if you are a citizen of the USA or not. If you live withing the boundaries of the USA then the Constitution protects your rights. It doesn't matter if you are born here or come here from Yemen, the Constitution protects your rights equally. This is based on the understanding that all people have natural rights not based on where they come form but the fact that they are human.

This understanding also helps make sense of the Bill of Rights. Those rights in it aren't government given rights. Rather the document that all people have those rights and the federal government is forbidden to violate them.

Right you are. You explain it well and it would be great if those who want to increase the power of goonerment would see the simple fact that goonerment violates basic rights!!

It's clear that the "constitution" was an attempt to restrict the goons from infringing on rights of "THE PEOPLE", but it has proven to be inneffective. "The People" mean (as the founders explained in many supporting documents) to be those created by God... Maybe some people here believe that foreigners were NOT created by God??

[fedupinmo]

Running for those offices isn't a natural right though. And I don't see how the other things you mentioned have anything to do with the topic. In mentioning them, I don't believe the Constitution refers to citizenship at all. Does it?

Seriously... you should just read it top to bottom . Interesting stuff, really.

[Zippyjuan]

Seriously... you should just read it top to bottom . Interesting stuff, really.

Constitution only refers to Naturalization- the process by which a person not born in the country can become a citizen. The only other references to immigration or citizenship is the requirement that certain elected officials be citizens by birth. It says nothing about immigration or rights or lack of rights of immigrants.

[otherone]

Constitution only refers to Naturalization- the process by which a person not born in the country can become a citizen. The only other references to immigration or citizenship is the requirement that certain elected officials be citizens by birth. It says nothing about immigration or rights or lack of rights of immigrants.

The problem of course, of only citizens having rights, is who decides who are citizens.
HINT: It ain't God.