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

[Superfluous Man]

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

I have. That's why I thought your remarks were so strange.

[TommyJeff]

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.

Ok we agree. The constitution doesn't relate to foreigners who didn't yet cross the boarder/customs, into the USA.

[TommyJeff]

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.

I habe two questions and hope you'll answer both please.
1. if it's not a federal issue, who's issue is it?

2. why is a boarder or boundary contrary to natural law? a group of people can gather, own propery, protect that property, and deny access to others while not violating their natural rights. Do you not agree?

[Superfluous Man]

Ok we agree. The constitution doesn't relate to foreigners who didn't yet cross the boarder/customs, into the USA.

"Does not relate" in what way?

It doesn't relate to citizens either in any direct way. It relates directly to the federal government, by enumerating its powers. It ostensibly limits the federal government by prohibiting it from exercising powers outside those enumerated.

This prohibition doesn't have a loophole that permits the federal government to exercise other powers, but only if the people whose rights it violates thereby are foreigners.

[Superfluous Man]

I habe two questions and hope you'll answer both please.
1. if it's not a federal issue, who's issue is it?

According to the 10th Amendment, either the states or the people.

2. why is a boarder or boundary contrary to natural law?

I never said it was.

[TommyJeff]

It says nothing about immigration or rights or lack of rights of immigrants.

Zippy, I enjoy your point of view. So I hope you don't mind my interjection.
Is it possible this term immigration is more of a question of semantics? The constitution says nothing about citizens bearing guns either.
Immigration isn't a vacation. It's the perminant living arrangement in a new location. That sounds an awful lot like a person on a path to citizenship. But, if you don't agree, where does the immigration authority fall, to the states?

[TommyJeff]

"Does not relate" in what way?

It doesn't relate to citizens either in any direct way.

It sure does. It relates to citizens by enumerating the power of uniform naturalization to the federal government.

[TommyJeff]

According to the 10th Amendment, either the states or the people.
Ok, I asked that before. you said you weren't contending immigration is a state issue. So are you saying the people determine it?

never said it was.

I apologize. Didn't intend to put words in your mouth.
I read your prior post to say, the restriction of immigration, by a state, violates natural law. Did I misunderstand you?

[Zippyjuan]

Zippy, I enjoy your point of view. So I hope you don't mind my interjection.
Is it possible this term immigration is more of a question of semantics? The constitution says nothing about citizens bearing guns either.
Immigration isn't a vacation. It's the perminant living arrangement in a new location. That sounds an awful lot like a person on a path to citizenship. But, if you don't agree, where does the immigration authority fall, to the states?

As mentioned, the only thing the Constitution says even remotely related to immigration is that Congress has the power to set the rules for Naturlization.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Naturalization being the process of somebody not being a citizen by birth attaining citizenship. If you were not a citizen by birth, you must have entered the country from someplace else (unless you were a slave or a diplomat or an American Indian). Therefore, there must be a way to be allowed to enter the country in the first place.

It also does grant Congress:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

But that seems to apply based on context to military captures- not immigrants found within the borders or waters.

And there is also:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

But that seems to relate to criminals. Are immigrants criminals? Probably not- many of the founders were immigrants or descended from them.

Is this relevant?

To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Is immigration important to the General Welfare of the country (Positively or negatively)?


If any of these apply, then Congress has the power:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Constitution was not set out to cover everything. It could not. It was basically intended to set up the structure of government and allocate the powers of running the country. President was the head of the military and the Executive Branch- charged with carrying out the laws created. Congress was charged with writing the laws- subject to the approval of the President (who can veto them). The Judiciary was to rule on violations of the laws and violations of powers.

I would say yes, the Congress has the power to determine what is and is not allowed in immigration.

Immigration isn't a vacation. It's the perminant living arrangement in a new location.

Immigration can also be a temporary thing. Moving to a country for a temporary job assignment. Going there for an education or for vacation (though vacationers are generally not considered immigrants since their stay is too short. How long do you have to stay before you become one? Arbitrary decision). It CAN lead to citizenship if you make it permanent.

As for guns, that is under dispute too. The Second Amendment says:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Some take that to mean military arms to be used by domestic armies. Hunting and fishing were ways of survival then though so guns were not just for military use.

[TommyJeff]

As mentioned, the only thing the Constitution says even remotely related to immigration is that Congress has the power to set the rules for Naturlization.



Naturalization being the process of somebody not being a citizen by birth attaining citizenship. If you were not a citizen by birth, you must have entered the country from someplace else (unless you were a slave or a diplomat or an American Indian). Therefore, there must be a way to be allowed to enter the country in the first place.

I agree, there must be a way for people to enter the country, from someplace else. But are you saying the uniform rules for naturalization cannot include the acceptable way in which people from some other place cross the boarder (or enter the country)?


and i didn't want to get off topic with the second amendment comment, but the term arms is accepted as guns (at least in part), without having to say the term guns. If you're suggesting arms doesn't infer or include guns, we have a whole new debate on our hands.

[Superfluous Man]

It sure does. It relates to citizens by enumerating the power of uniform naturalization to the federal government.

You keep changing the subject.

That wasn't what your quote was about that I was responding to. By this same respect, the Constitution also relates to foreigners, since it enumerates the power of naturalization to the federal government to decide how they can become citizens.

But that wasn't what we were debating.

It does show, though, how your choice of the word "relates" was unhelpful.

[Superfluous Man]

I read your prior post to say, the restriction of immigration, by a state, violates natural law. Did I misunderstand you?

No, you didn't misunderstand me. But that's not how you characterized my position in post #63.

Restricting immigration by a state does violate natural law.

Just as if would violate natural law if I personally as an individual tried to restrict immigration.

[TommyJeff]

You keep changing the subject.

That wasn't what your quote was about that I was responding to. By this same respect, the Constitution also relates to foreigners, since it enumerates the power of naturalization to the federal government to decide how they can become citizens.

But that wasn't what we were debating.

It does show, though, how your choice of the word "relates" was unhelpful. I concede this last point

im not trying to change the subject. I may have misspoken, so I will try to clear things up. The federal government sets the uniform way for a foreigner on foreign soil to become a US citizen, which may include the process by which a person on foreign soil enters into this country. But prior to that person stepping foot on US soil, they are subject to the rules, regulations and government powers set forth by the nation where they reside.

To get this back on point. Is it your contention that the federal government cannot be involved in immigration?

[Superfluous Man]

To get this back on point. Is it your contention that the federal government cannot be involved in immigration?

The federal government has no right to restrict immigration.

Neither does anyone else.

[TommyJeff]

No, you didn't misunderstand me. But that's not how you characterized my position in post #63.

Restricting immigration by a state does violate natural law.

Just as if would violate natural law if I personally as an individual tried to restrict immigration.

If a group of people decide to gather together, agree on some rules in a leagally binding way(accepted by the group), and one such rule restricts access to those not in this group, that does not violate natural law --- do we ageee?

but if someone labels this land as Virginia and the group of people as Virginians, then it does violate natural law?

Im willing to be educated. Would you explain which natural law is violated differently above please? Thank you for all your posts and replies.

[TommyJeff]

The federal government has no right to restrict immigration.

Neither does anyone else.

Doesnt this assume no one has the right to own land? Is that what you're saying? everyone can roam anywhere without restriction and no one can restrict access to any areas?

[Superfluous Man]

If a group of people decide to gather together, agree on some rules in a leagally binding way(accepted by the group), and one such rule restricts access to those not in this group, that does not violate natural law --- do we ageee?

Yes. They can do that for the property they all own. But they can't impose that restriction on any other property.

[Superfluous Man]

Doesnt this assume no one has the right to own land? Is that what you're saying? everyone can roam anywhere without restriction and no one can restrict access to any areas?

No, it doesn't assume that. In fact, your position, that the federal government has a right to restrict immigration is the position that assumes that no one has a right to own land.

You effectively treat all land in the USA as if it is the property of the federal government, and they get to decide who can and can't be on that land, rather than letting us, as owners of our own properties, make our own decisions about who can and can't be on our own land.

[TommyJeff]

No, it doesn't assume that. In fact, your position, that the federal government has a right to restrict immigration is the position that assumes that no one has a right to own land.

You effectively treat all land in the USA as if it is the property of the federal government, and they get to decide who can and can't be on that land, rather than letting us, as owners of our own properties, make our own decisions about who can and can't be on our own land.

Im not including the current federal overreach and claim of all land for itself.

But can't all the people collectively own the land inside a region? And can all those people agree that the collectively owned land will be monitored by a small group?


Maybe we aren't agreeing on terms. How are you defining immigration?

[Superfluous Man]

Im not including the current federal overreach and claim of all land for itself.

If you support federal immigration laws, then you are including that, whether intentionally or not.

But can't all the people collectively own the land inside a region? And can all those people agree that the collectively owned land will be monitored by a small group?

Yes. Like a neighborhood association.

[otherone]

But can't all the people collectively own the land inside a region? And can all those people agree that the collectively owned land will be monitored by a small group?

[TommyJeff]

Wow. Good image. Clearly I misspoke.
i should have also mentioned privately owned property in addition to the collectively owned. But I can see how my wording sounds bad.

[TommyJeff]

Yes. Like a neighborhood association.

and if that group & association were the size of Virginia, would your answer change?

[Superfluous Man]

and if that group & association were the size of Virginia, would your answer change?

No, my answer wouldn't change.

But it would still continue to be the case that the group would only have control over the property that is owned by its members who are in agreement with the policy.

They would have no right to impose their rules about whom they want to invite onto their property on any of the rest of us who don't agree. We would still have the right to invite those people onto our property.

[pcosmar]

Doesnt this assume no one has the right to own land? Is that what you're saying? everyone can roam anywhere without restriction and no one can restrict access to any areas?

The Federal Government has NO rights.
State governments have no rights.

Individuals have rights. Protected under our constitution,, but preexisting..
Human Rights.

States and Corporations have no rights.

[MallsRGood]

Serious question.... is illegal immigration trespassing

Only the owner of a parcel of land has the right to exclude people from that land.

No one owns the entire country, therefore no one has the right to exclude people from the entire country.

The country consists of many parcels of land owned by many different people, each of whom has the right to exclude people from his own land. Whether an immigrant (or anyone else) is trespassing when he enters a piece of land depends purely on whether the owner of that land has granted him permission, nor on whether any else - incl. the government - grants him permission.

But what about lands owned by the state and held open to the general public (e.g. roads), which any immigrant must invariably use?

Tabling the question of whether such public property should even exist, think about it practically. If the state allows Joe Merica to drive on the roads, for the price of purchasing of a driver's license, keeping his car registered, and whatever other conditions there might be, why not allow Jose Beaner to do the same? What difference does it makes where Jose was born? The restrictionist argument that Jose hasn't been paying the taxes that built the road doesn't make any sense, since it also applies to a great many Americans - 16 year olds haven't been paying any taxes when they start driving, and even people who've been paying taxes for decades are mostly net tax consumers when accounting for all the benefits they receive (i.e. they aren't really paying for the roads either). And if you're not going to deny them access to roads there's no reason to deny access to Jose.

or should the government not have anything to do with the supply and price curves of labor?

Certainly not. Apart from being immoral in itself, it necessarily reduces living standards.

It's invasion. Article IV, Section 4.

That's just silly.

The businessman checking into the Diamond Lounge at JFK isn't invading New York.

The German army wasn't immigrating to France in 1940.

invasion =/= movement

[John F Kennedy III]

We have rights because we exist. There is zero need for a creator to give us rights.

[LibertyRevolution]

#1) The constitution protects your rights, it does not grant them to you. Rights cannot be granted, only privileges are granted.

#2) The constitution protects the rights of its citizens. If you are not a citizen, then your rights are not protected, and all you have are privileges.

All cleared up now?


This should be required viewing for every high school student: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRcowVknJss

[fedupinmo]

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.

Article 1, Section 9 seems to infer that they had that power, since they had to abrogate that power in text temporarily.

The federal government has no right to restrict immigration.

Neither does anyone else.

The federal government has no rights at all, it has powers.

"Does not relate" in what way?

It doesn't relate to citizens either in any direct way. It relates directly to the federal government, by enumerating its powers. It ostensibly limits the federal government by prohibiting it from exercising powers outside those enumerated.

This prohibition doesn't have a loophole that permits the federal government to exercise other powers, but only if the people whose rights it violates thereby are foreigners.

That depends on the means of immigration... the government may permit some to immigrate here, with governmental permission, known as legal immigration.
Illegal immigration, or doing so without the permission of the fedgoob, is invasion and the United States is compelled to prevent it for the States by Article IV, Section 4.

[wizardwatson]

This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’ Zech 7:9-10

Justice is the goal. And mercy.

All this talk of "rights" is really just a watering down of the concept of justice. Turning the law into a commodity passed out by government to this and that "respected persons" even when they aren't actually persons. It's a better vocabulary for the type of divisive group think that plagues us these days than the old concepts of justice and law which carry a more universal connotation.

Rothbard tried to define rights through the secular concept of "self-ownership". While the negative right for others to aggress you might seem obvious, he fails, in my opinion, to define the "positive right" of retributive justice.

So what needs to be decided is not whether so-and-so has the "right" to do this or that, but are the people affected by an act being treated unjustly.