Is There a Right to Immigrate?

[otherone]

Here's what I said....




Please don't remove the tenor of my postings in order to spin my words.

Thanks for the clarification.
I didn't spin your words. I quoted you directly. "Subject to" does not mean "owe allegiance to".

[Natural Citizen]

Thanks for the clarification.
I didn't spin your words. I quoted you directly. "Subject to" does not mean "owe allegiance to".

No, scooter. What you're quoting are the words of Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Which I placed into relevant context here with the thread.

My tolerance with the antagonistic, anarchist, trolls around here like you isn't what it used to be. So I'm going to give you fair warning should you choose to proceed with that kind of thing. My willingness to be nice is thinning out with some of you who really don't belong here and should be in an anarchist/anti-government board some place.

[Natural Citizen]

Idiotic argument. You clearly don't understand what immigration or property rights are.

This is something that I see you say to people quite a bit. I don't generally like to say you're this or you're that or you this or you that. But do you know what? I'm going to make an exception with you just because I see you do it so much. It's you who lacks a grasp on history and our Constitutional Republic. Observably. You're another one of the anarchists around here who really makes the place stink. People like you are why the doers don't come here anymore. People like you are what is wrong. People like you are really nothing but a turnoff to people who have an appreciation for the validity of our founding documents and who would come here to try to learn things. Someone like you who 1 - rejects them, and 2 - has a very minimal and shallow grasp of that which you speak of, really have no business trying to "educate" on the topic.

I really do wish that Bryan would thin some of you peckerheads out of here. You, like some others, are not worth your weight. You're a detriment to the cause of Individual Liberty and small government as a matter of functional activism. This isn't an anarchy board. It isn't an anti-government board. What you're doing, and what others like you are doing, is blatantly getting in the way of functional activism.

As far as your thought about LE, she's done far, far, far more around here for the cause of Individual Liberty than you ever have. I guarantee it. I suspect that your keyboard is likely as far as you've went to pop off your anarchist, Anti-America, spew. We've lost a lot of good people around here. People who were doers. And do you know why? I'll tell you why. Because they don't want to be represented by or associated with antagonistic pricks like you. People liek you who actually reject our documents and form of government and who think they know far more than they actually do and who get in the way of what we're actually trying to do.

[otherone]

No, scooter. What you're quoting are the words of Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Which I placed into relevant context here with the thread.

My tolerance with the antagonistic, anarchist, trolls around here like you isn't what it used to be. So I'm going to give you fair warning should you choose to proceed with that kind of thing. My willingness to be nice is thinning out with some of you who really don't belong here and should be in an anarchist/anti-government board some place.

I have no idea what you are going on about. Making this discussion personal is inappropriate.

[Tywysog Cymru]

The government has the right to control who and what goes through their borders. For instance, it's reasonable to keep criminals out of the country. I would argue that closing the borders is a really bad idea, however.

There is certainly a right to move anywhere within the 50 states, DC, or the territories. There is also a right to leave the country.

[PierzStyx]

This is something that I see you say to people quite a bit. But do you know what? It's you who lacks a grasp on history and our Constitutional Republic. You're another one of the anarchists around here who really makes the place stink. People like you are why the doers don't come here anymore. People like you are what is wrong. People like you are really nothing but a turnoff to people who have an appreciation for the validity of our founding documents and who would come here to try to learn things. Someone like you who 1 - rejects them, and 2 - has a very minimal and shallow grasp of that which you speak of, really have no business trying to educate on the topic.

I really do wish that Bryan would thin some of you peckerheads out of here. You, like some others, are not worth your weight. You're a detriment to the cause of Individual Liberty and small government. This isn't an anarchy board. It isn't an anti-government board.

An idiotic argument is an idiotic argument.

And anyone arguing for the power of the state to regulate immigration obviously has no comprehension of what the US Constitution actually says. And that is the irony of your insult. This "anarchist" actually knows and follows the Constitution far better than you do. You, and those like you, constantly argue for state powers that are totally in violation of the powers and limitations the Constitution places on the Fedgov.

For example: The Constitution does not give any branch of the government authority to regulate immigration in any way. The Tenth Amendment says that any powers not given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved to the people. Therefore the Fedgov has no power to regulate immigration and the assumption of such a power by the Fedgov is an unconstitutional and unjust power.

Need proof? here is a link to the full text of The Constitution. Show me where it authorizes immigration regulation on part of the Federal Government. http://constitutionus.com/

I won't hold my breath though because no such clause exists and the Fedgov is never empowered by the Constitution to do so.

On top of this you have Natural law, the basis for American ideals of liberty and human rights. According to Natural Law no state could ever justly have the power to regulate immigration since that would be a violation of property rights. And governments that violate your rights have no authority and should be replaced. This was the philosophical basis of the American Revolution. Even if the Fedgov changed the Constitution to get power to regulate immigration that would be a violation of individual property rights as you cannot regulate property you do not own. So according to the ideals of the American revolution the people would be justified in disobeying such an unjust law (Jefferson and Madison called it nullification) and any government trying to enforce such a law would be rebelled against by those who love liberty. Rights are superior to law in every way.

If you gave a single damn about our "founding documents" the only valid position you could hold would be open borders. It is the only constitutional position, the only liberty position, the only rights driven position. That you do not hold this position just demonstrates your ignorance of the Constitution and the hypocrisy at the core of modern Republican nationalism. If anyone is the enemy of liberty it is you and those like you who call for the government to violate the rights of hundreds of millions of people. You mouth all sorts of words about obeying the Constitution but you violate it just as often as any other Leftist seeking to force their ideal society down the throats of others. And like all other good Leftists, you want to purge anyone who has a different opinion than you.

To be quite frank, I know the founding documents of this country better than you do.

[Natural Citizen]

The people are the government, dumbass.

An idiotic argument is an idiotic argument.

And anyone arguing for the power of the state to regulate immigration obviously has no comprehension of what the US Constitution actually says. And that is the irony of your insult. This "anarchist" actually knows and follows the Constitution far better than you do. You, and those like you, constantly argue for state powers that are totally in violation of the powers and limitations the Constitution places on the Fedgov.

For example: The Constitution does not give any branch of the government authority to regulate immigration in any way. The Tenth Amendment says that any powers not given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved to the people. Therefore the Fedgov has no power to regulate immigration and the assumption of such a power by the Fedgov is an unconstitutional and unjust power.

Need proof? here is a link to the full text of The Constitution. Show me where it authorizes immigration regulation on part of the Federal Government. http://constitutionus.com/

I won't hold my breath though because no such clause exists and the Fedgov is never empowered by the Constitution to do so.

On top of this you have Natural law, the basis for American ideals of liberty and human rights. According to Natural Law no state could ever justly have the power to regulate immigration since that would be a violation of property rights. And governments that violate your rights have no authority and should be replaced. This was the philosophical basis of the American Revolution. Even if the Fedgov changed the Constitution to get power to regulate immigration that would be a violation of individual property rights as you cannot regulate property you do not own. So according to the ideals of the American revolution the people would be justified in disobeying such an unjust law (Jefferson and Madison called it nullification) and any government trying to enforce such a law would be rebelled against by those who love liberty. Rights are superior to law in every way.

If you gave a single damn about our "founding documents" the only valid position you could hold would be open borders. It is the only constitutional position, the only liberty position, the only rights driven position. That you do not hold this position just demonstrates your ignorance of the Constitution and the hypocrisy at the core of modern Republican nationalism. If anyone is the enemy of liberty it is you and those like you who call for the government to violate the rights of hundreds of millions of people. You mouth all sorts of words about obeying the Constitution but you violate it just as often as any other Leftist seeking to force their ideal society down the throats of others. And like all other good Leftists, you want to purge anyone who has a different opinion than you.

To be quite frank, I know the founding documents of this country better than you do.

[Natural Citizen]

I have no idea what you are going on about. Making this discussion personal is inappropriate.

Well, it's a good thing I don't care about your feelings, now isn't it, princess.

The next time you quote me, quote me completely. It's common gaddamn courtesy. Because when you completely remove the tenor and references in my posting in order to pick out one or two words for the purpose of creating your own separate debate , you're making it personal. I've read your posts for a long time. As I'd said, if you want to have that separate debate, then start a thread.

Here it is again...ask your questions in a manner that is relative to what I said.

Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
Well, does section V of the 14th make it clear that Congress has the power to define jurisdiction of the United States of America? I think so. They've used this power before. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 would be an example of the use of that power. Additionally, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 defined citizens of the United States as all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed. That said, and some will certainly disagree, that means that every person born here is subject to individual State jurisdiction. That said, a person cannot just claim jurisdiction because they choose to walk into our country. That's further compounded by the fact that the immigrant owes allegiance to his or her own country. Of course, many will also disagree with the allegiance part, too, but these folks are typically opposed to our founding documents and the very philosophy of our traditional form of government anyway.

[otherone]

Well, does section V of the 14th make it clear that Congress has the power to define jurisdiction of the United States of America? I think so. They've used this power before. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 would be an example of the use of that power. Additionally, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 defined citizens of the United States as all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed. That said, and some will certainly disagree, that means that every person born here is subject to individual State jurisdiction. That said, a person cannot just claim jurisdiction because they choose to walk into our country. That's further compounded by the fact that the immigrant owes allegiance to his or her own country. Of course, many will also disagree with the allegiance part, too, but these folks are typically opposed to our founding documents and the very philosophy of our traditional form of government anyway.

I didn't create an excerpt, as that appears to trigger you, so I emboldened that which is confusing. I don't understand what you mean by "jurisdiction". Every person present in, not just born to, a state is subject to it's jurisdiction. I don't understand the "claiming" jurisdiction sentence, and I certainly don't understand owing allegiance to any jurisdiction.

[PierzStyx]

The people are the government, dumbass.

First of all, don't think I didn't notice that you ignored the fact that neither the Natural Law philosophy that inspired the Founding Fathers nor the Constitution authorize the Fedgov to regulate or limit immigration in any manner. You know you're wrong and you know you're a hypocrite. Or you're a coward. Either way it must burn you up when an "anarchist" knows more about and follows the Constitution more than you do.

Facts are fact though and the only way you can call yourself a constitutionalist is by being for open borders. Anything else is Leftist assumption of power by the Fedgov.

Secondly, anyone who seriously thinks the people are the government is ridiculously wrong. Not only is that not how it is framed in the Constitution, where it lays out the government "the people" are forming as a distinct unit to guide the nation (unites really as both state and federal spheres of government organizations are recognized in the Constitution), but it is clear in every day life too where the government will beat you, kidnap you, sexually assault you, and throw you in a rape cage for daring to exercise even the most basic rights of property ownership. If you think the people are the government then refuse to allow the government to steal your property in the form of taxes and see what happens.

Third, stop being a baby. Seriously, your response to me in the rep bar sounds like something a child would say. "You'll find that my neg power is far, far, far, greater than yours. lol," sounds like something a schoolyard bully would say. If you can't attack the actual argument then don't make yourself look foolish by committing fallacies.

[PierzStyx]

I didn't create an excerpt, as that appears to trigger you, so I emboldened that which is confusing. I don't understand what you mean by "jurisdiction". Every person present in, not just born to, a state is subject to it's jurisdiction. I don't understand the "claiming" jurisdiction sentence, and I certainly don't understand owing allegiance to any jurisdiction.

You don't understand it because you don't have a slave mentality. See, you think of people as people, born with natural rights inalienable and secure. NC sees everyone as a servant to the state. To NC you are automatically bound to think, obey, and love whatever government you're born under without any free will or human liberty. He doesn't understand that a free person doesn't owe obedience and subservience to any government, that this lack of owed obedience is actually what constitutes a "free person." To NC we are all blind, obedient, puppets for the state to order around at will and which we are bound to obey because of the dirt we were born on is between some imaginary lines someone else drew on a map.

[JK/SEA]

Under more reasonable circumstances I might . Seems like it would be nice if people could move freely .

never happen, however, one scenario would be a near extinction event where only a few million people lived, then perhaps i could get that house built i always wanted in Iran.

[oyarde]

never happen, however, one scenario would be a near extinction event where only a few million people lived, then perhaps i could get that house built i always wanted in Iran.

I will stay here , you should try the Persian Melons .

[timosman]

You don't understand it because you don't have a slave mentality. See, you think of people as people, born with natural rights inalienable and secure. NC sees everyone as a servant to the state. To NC you are automatically bound to think, obey, and love whatever government you're born under without any free will or human liberty. He doesn't understand that a free person doesn't owe obedience and subservience to any government, that this lack of owed obedience is actually what constitutes a "free person." To NC we are all blind, obedient, puppets for the state to order around at will and which we are bound to obey because of the dirt we were born on is between some imaginary lines someone else drew on a map.

Now lets talk about the role of money in all of this. I assume you think money is imaginary as well? And yet, somehow everybody is influenced by it. Let me know when you solve this problem.

[Jesse James]

Nobody has any right to dictate what goes on in or on my property. If somebody can full support themselves ala no welfare then they should be welcome to come. End welfare. All public services. Then, EVERYBODY can come in.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Sure. Myself, as well.



Do you understand the fundamental philosophy that Man uses government to be his tools? Because it seems like you're separating Man from Government. Certainly the brotherhood of men under the common Fatherhood of God is the underlying foundation for moral code that stimulates proper man-to-man relations, and subsequemtly defines proper government-to-Man relations. Would you not agree with that? Or are you completely ant-government as opposed to simply less government?

No, aparently I don't "understand the fundamental philosophy that Man uses government to be his tools" because I certainly can't USE those "tools". If I could, I'd use them to force themselves from stealing property and killing peaceful people. "Brotherhood of men" is a great idea for having a code they want to follow for relations that they believe in but where it goes crazy haywire is where this "brotherhood" decides they can force their "code" on others who don't believe in it or care to pay for it...

Show me the "moral" idea behind stealing someone's property or locking someone up for a "violating" a "code" that can claim no victim?? Indeed, I don't believe that a band of men have a moral standing to lock ANYONE up even for murder unless they are family or otherwise associated with the victim. Prisons are immoral...

[ChristianAnarchist]

The people are the government, dumbass.

Actually not... If you want to believe in goonerment as set out in the constitution as the founders envisioned (they are rolling over for sure) then the goonerment is rightly called SERVANT! You cannot call "the people" their own "servant". The founders envisioned a goonerment that was to SERVE the people, not rule over them. As anyone who's even been partially awake these last 100 years knows "they" don't "serve" anyone, unless it's on a platter well done...

[LibertyRevolution]

Libertarianism 101. All rights are derived from property.
Who's property is being violated? The united States.
Who owns the united States? Its citizens.
So who is damaged by illegal immigration? Every citizen of the united States.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Libertarianism 101. All rights are derived from property.
Who's property is being violated? The united States.
Who owns the united States? Its citizens.
So who is damaged by illegal immigration? Every citizen of the united States.

Really? Is there some plot map with deed information showing "the United States" as property owners?? If so who "deeded" the property to them and how did "they" obtain title??

[otherone]

Libertarianism 101. All rights are derived from property.
Who's property is being violated? The united States.
Who owns the united States? Its citizens.
So who is damaged by illegal immigration? Every citizen of the united States.

Do collective property rights trump private property rights?

[osan]

Methinks there are some issues here. This will not be exhaustive, but I will point out a few problems with the communications style at the very least. Words are important, and therefore this is not a picking of nits.

Some reason that, just as a private club may exercise its discretion as to whom to admit or exclude, so a nation-state has the right to choose whom to admit or exclude.

Firstly, "nation state[s]" do not in themselves exist. They cannot, therefore, have any "right[s]". It would have been more informative to refer to a population of individuals identifying themselves as a "nation-state". It would have been a statement far closer to truth than this reference to something whose innate and independent material reality no man can identify to the world.

It also serves well to point out that "rights" come in two radically different flavors: those of a "fundamental" nature and those that are contractual, or synthetic, the latter for all practical purposes synonymous with "privileges", arising solely as matters of agreement between men.

Some believe that we must exclude most would-be immigrants in order to maintain the integrity of our national culture. Others argue that immigrants cause economic hardship for existing citizens—that they take jobs from American workers, depress wages, and place an undue burden on social services provided by the state. Some go so far as to warn that unchecked immigration would bring on environmental, economic, and social catastrophes that would reduce the United States to the status of a Third World country.

These are valid objections to unrestricted immigration, given the practical realities of human behavior.

Does the state have the right to exclude these ordinary people?

Taking "right" to refer to the "state's" valid authority (however erroneously), the answer is this: in theory, no. In practice, something other than "no".

In the following, I argue that the answer to this question is no. I shall assume that we are considering ordinary, noncriminal migrants who wish to leave their country of origin for morally innocent reasons, whether to escape persecution or economic hardship, or simply to join a society they would prefer to live in. Though I shall conduct the discussion in terms of the situation of the United States, most of my arguments apply equally well to other countries.

That's an awful lot of assuming, making this perforce a purely theoretical exposition.

My strategy is to argue, first, that immigration restriction is at least a prima facie violation of the rights of potential immigrants.

Thus far, no mention of the rights of those already established on the land. This is problematic and should have been mentioned first, exposing at the very least a structural flaw in the argument.

This imposes a burden on advocates of restriction to cite some special conditions that either neutralize or outweigh the relevant prima facie right.

"Prima facie right": assumtion FAIL. The right has not been established as "prima facie". If the right is in fact so, then the restrictive assumptions about innocent intent and so forth become irrelevant at the very least. It follows therefrom that one's suspicion's of the author's honesty and/or competency rise with strong validity.

I then examine the most popular justifications offered for restricting immigration, finding that none of them offers a credible rationale for claiming either that such restriction does not violate rights or that the rights violation is justified. This leaves immigration restrictions ultimately unjustified.

So far, my basis for confidence in the author's assertions suffers grave anemia.

A word about theoretical assumptions. In my view, most general theories or theoretical approaches in political philosophy—liberal egalitarianism, contractarianism, utilitarianism, and so on—are too controversial to form a secure basis for reasoning. It is not known which, if any, of those theories are correct.

Then I must submit that either the theories are ill-formed or the analytic capacities of some people regarding the relevant issues are sorely wanting.

I have therefore sought to minimize the reliance on such theories.

Fundamental failure: author should not rely upon them at all.

This does not mean that I assume that all such broad theories are false; I merely refrain from resting my arguments on them. Thus, I do not assume utilitarianism, contractarianism, libertarian rights theory, liberal egalitarianism, nor any general account of harm or rights.

Contradicts self. Minimal reliance <> non-reliance. This is a philosophical address; words become especially important. Thus far, big problems that most people will never see.

Nor do I assume the negation of any of those theories. Instead, I aim to rest conclusions on widely-shared ethical intuitions about relatively specific cases.

More crash-FAIL. Shared by whom? Intuitions? Is this guy serious? On such matters, we leave intuition at home so as not even to befoul the parking lot with it.

The method is to describe a case in which nearly everyone will share a particular, clear intuitive evaluation of some action, and then to draw a parallel from the case described to some controversial case of interest. This methodology follows a well-established tradition in applied ethics; Footnote I propose that the approach be applied to the issue of immigration. The approach can, of course, be subjected to criticism, particularly for the weight placed on common ethical intuitions, but this is not the place for a general discussion of the value of ethical intuition. Footnote In any event, the intuitive premises I shall rely on are, I hope, much less controversial than the broad philosophical theories of the sort mentioned above, and much less initially controversial than the immigration issue itself.

I don't know whether this guy just does not write well, or if his reasoning or perhaps honesty is the problem.

2. Immigration Restriction as a Prima Facie Rights Violation

In this section, I aim to show that immigration restriction is a prima facie rights violation. A prima facie rights violation is an action of a sort that normally—that is, barring any special circumstances—violates someone’s rights. For example, killing a human being is a prima facie rights violation: in normal circumstances, to kill someone is to violate his rights. But there are special circumstances that may alter this verdict: euthanasia and self-defense killings do not violate rights, for instance.

More of same. Killing another is, in fact and indeed, a violation of his rights. The difference is that the violation is justifiable, in this case because the other has presumably forced upon the killer a choice between living and either dying or some other harm to which the dead man had no authority to impose. Once again, these may seem as nits, but they are actually radical points and should be expressed properly. This passage along betrays a significant lack of proper understanding by the author.

Furthermore, even when an action violates rights, it may sometimes be justified nevertheless, because the victim’s rights may be outweighed by competing moral considerations. Thus, killing one innocent person may be justified, though a violation of the victim’s right to life, if it is necessary to prevent the deaths of one million others. Or so it seems to me.

And so it seemed to Mao, Stalin, Pot, Amin, the Ottomans, and on down that dreary and depressing list.

The claim that an action is a prima facie rights violation, then, is not a very strong claim. It does not entail that the action is wrong all things considered, for there may be special circumstances that prevent the action from being an actual rights-violation, or that render it justified despite its violation of rights. But nor is the claim entirely without force: to accept that an action is a prima facie rights-violation has the effect of shifting a normative presumption. It becomes the burden of those who advocate the act in question to identify the special exculpatory or justificatory circumstances that make what tends to be a wrongful rights violation either not a rights violation in this case, or a justified rights-violation. Those who oppose the act in question need only rebut such efforts.

It is interesting to observe that the author makes clear his awareness of valid issues, yet pulls them together in failed fashion. Not uncommon.

Was Sam’s action wrong?

I suspect a fallacious analogy is on the near horizon.

I think they show, to begin with, that individuals have a prima facie, negative right, not to be subjected to seriously harmful coercion.

"I think"? This is a beginner, methinks. At least for his sake I hope so.

How does all this relate to U.S. immigration policy? The role of Marvin is played by those potential immigrants who seek escape from oppression or economic hardship.

And just as I suspected, the gravely invalid analogy. FAIL.

The marketplace is the United States: were they allowed in, most immigrants would succeed in meeting their needs (to a greater extent, at least, than they will if they are not allowed in).

Simplistic reasoning; wholly inadequate to the analytic task at hand in real-world terms. The theoretic case is trivial to make, requiring little of the noises being made.

This guy has a lot to learn about how to build a valid argument. This could be seen as an economy sized strawman; perhaps a series of non-sequiturs. I'm sure there are other flaws I am not inclined to look for at this time.

many ["refugees"] suffer from oppression or poverty that could and would be remedied, if only they were able to enter the country of their choice.

And all my problems would be solved if only I'd be given access to the gold in Ft. Knox. This is bush league nonsense. The theoretical assumptions cut no muster with the real-world case.

In view of this, the actions of the U.S. government, prima facie, constitute serious violations of the rights of potential immigrants—specifically, the government violates their prima facie right not to be harmfully coerced.

In view of this, the author has a long way to go in his understanding of not only principle, but of the realities of the Empire world in which we live where men behave atrociously as matters of course such that their atrocities have been elevated to the status of "normal" and even "virtuous".

This claim is controversial;

No, it is not. Author is either clueless or is peddling a bill or rotten goods.

one can harm a person by preventing that person from averting or remedying a harm originated by someone or something else.

By this reasoning, I am obliged to allow any hungry man wandering the street into my house to raid my refrigeratory.

The way the government harms potential immigrants is by excluding them from a certain physical area, and thereby effectively excluding them from interacting in important and valuable ways with people (other than the government itself) who are in that region.

Seems I've wasted entirely too much thought on this nonsense. The article fails spectacularly.

[osan]

Do collective property rights trump private property rights?

Rights are not additive.

[osan]

Really? Is there some plot map with deed information showing "the United States" as property owners?? If so who "deeded" the property to them and how did "they" obtain title??

Then nobody holds title to any property, the ultimate conclusion to which your logic points. I do not accept this as either valid or truthful. I do not accept that that which one claims as property must be surrendered to another upon demand. This is a very strong definition of chaos. It is the very core of the criminal insanity of the progressive.

[osan]

An idiotic argument is an idiotic argument.

What's good for the goose...

And anyone arguing for the power of the state to regulate immigration obviously has no comprehension of what the US Constitution actually says.

You appear to suffer from the same trouble. But let us see.

You, and those like you, constantly argue for state powers that are totally in violation of the powers and limitations the Constitution places on the Fedgov.

You speak too broadly. I, for one, argue for state power in the context of the reality that we live in Empire. My ideal world is purely anarchic. It is the natural and rightful state for all men to choose. That some men disparage this right, sword in hand, it does not follow that the right does not exist. On the other hand, the reality is what it is: there are tyrants at every turn who endeavor to dominate with ever greater constriction over their fellows.

If you want to flail haplessly in your fantasies, I begrudge you none of it. I, OTOH, have found the virtue in dealing with reality on its own terms. Choose as you please. I do the same.

Perhaps one day men will return to my enlightened state, but that will likely not be the case for a very long time. Therefore, practicality suggests itself in terms of how we approach the problem of the tyrant. Today the best for which we can reasonably hope is to limit tyranny. One day perhaps men will kick it to the curb, though I am endlessly doubtful of this.

Therefore, the practical approach would seem to be to chip at the tyrant in piecemeal fashion. It took us, to date, 229 years to come to this sorry and frightful pass. Therefore, it is almost guaranteed to take similar time to claw our way back to something notably closer to actual freedom such that it is worthy of mention.

The anarchic ideal is the light to which we aspire. To reject all change that does not drop us into liberty's unrestrained bosom in an instant is not a mark of a properly reasoning mind.

Even so, the realities of a dangerously hard-corrupted and threatening world would compel even the ideal anarchy to disparage the rights of those outside of its borders for reasons I certainly hope need not be spelled out to you.

For example: The Constitution does not give any branch of the government authority to regulate immigration in any way.

It most assuredly does, through the agency of Congress' granted power to legislate. The restrictions upon such legislation center largely upon the issues raised in the BoR, which address mostly negative rights. Therefore, they may not legislate violations of the rights of men, but neither do they have to aid and abet the interests of those outside our borders.

The essence of your apparent position is that we are obliged to kow-tow to the "needs" of those outside our borders. Demonstrating this would prove impossibly difficult, but feel free to give it a whirl.

The Tenth Amendment says that any powers not given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved to the people. Therefore the Fedgov has no power to regulate immigration and the assumption of such a power by the Fedgov is an unconstitutional and unjust power.

This is a false conclusion.

Need proof? here is a link to the full text of The Constitution. Show me where it authorizes immigration regulation on part of the Federal Government. http://constitutionus.com/

To wit:

Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Then there is this:

Section 2

1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Note the bold. Are Electors defined anywhere in the Constitution? I do not recall that they are, nor how one becomes one, and so forth. The Constitution has simply assumed their existence and left the details to fate. The point here is that the Constitution is a grossly lacking document for the absence of critical detail and other specificities. If we proceeded strictly on what is in print, we would have no government at all - which would suit me just fine, but that is not how things evolved. It is precisely this sort of failing that lead to Marbury. Where the Constitution failed, the men of the SCOTUS took up.

Therefore, where the Constitution has failed, men have had to use their judgment, for better or (most likely) worse.

I won't hold my breath though because no such clause exists and the Fedgov is never empowered by the Constitution to do so.

Not so fast.

Section 8...The Congress shall have Power To ...

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Then there's this:

Art. IV, §3, clause 2

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Also:

Art. IV, §4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

All of these provisions, while vague-ish, are not more lacking in specificity than the other stipulations of the document. Therefore, they may interpreted validly as conferring to Congress the power to control the national borders. I will add this last bit:

Art. I §8, Clause 11: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This is perhaps the real killer of your position. Control of the borders is readily argued as a matter of the general welfare AND the common defense of the nation. While once again lacking is painful detail, it requires not stretch to arrive at the conclusions in favor of such powers.

On top of this you have Natural law

Which speaks to an ideal to which we are behooved to return. But Theye recognize no such things and we live under Theire tyrannies. As such, we must take a more practical approach to our views, and the attendant strategies and their resultant tactics.

According to Natural Law no state could ever justly have the power to regulate immigration since that would be a violation of property rights.

Perhaps correct, but only so far as it simplistically reaches. It neglects practical reality. Were the entire world politically uniform in its respect for human rights, it would be perhaps sufficient. Alas, the world is one of graft and violence, mostly perpetrated by "government".

America, deservedly or otherwise, has real and dangerous enemies. I doubt you would want to have to deal with the problems that would arise were we to open our borders to anyone demanding entry.

And governments that violate your rights have no authority and should be replaced.

While correct, in vacuo, in proper context it predicates differently. The government is tasked with the protection of the people of whom it derives and to whom it attaches. Immigration is an issue that, if left unregulated under the current totality of conditions of this world, holds high potential for giving rise to great conflicts of interests between the people of a nation and those seeking entry. In such cases, the rights of a government's people supersede those of the others. It would make absolutely no sense to place the interests of aliens over the indigent people.

To the practical, imagine that one billion people from around the world decided tomorrow to come to America. Are we obliged to admit them all?

Your reasoning fails to take into account the context of reality, which greatly complicates matters.

[presence]

this has the makings of the best think tank thread in a while

[ChristianAnarchist]

Then nobody holds title to any property, the ultimate conclusion to which your logic points. I do not accept this as either valid or truthful. I do not accept that that which one claims as property must be surrendered to another upon demand. This is a very strong definition of chaos. It is the very core of the criminal insanity of the progressive.

Depends on your definition of "title". There's an old saying that's not only wise, it's based in "law". "Possession is nine tenths of the law". This is an ancient and established principal that still holds true today. You have the burden to prove that something possessed by another is yours (and it's a high bar). This is why people would "stake out" their claim to land. They would mark it and declare it to be theirs. If someone else claims it they need to prove their "claim"...

[presence]

Then nobody holds title to any property, the ultimate conclusion to which your logic points. I do not accept this as either valid or truthful. I do not accept that that which one claims as property must be surrendered to another upon demand. This is a very strong definition of chaos. It is the very core of the criminal insanity of the progressive.

What if "title" is the acorn which manifests the regulatory entitlement state?

What if the only natural law right to property one has is in its use in good will; all else to the edge of the universe is simply common?

[osan]

Depends on your definition of "title".

No. There is only one relevant meaning of "title" here. To wit:

6. anestablishedorrecognizedrighttosomething.

Webster's:

• a : all the elements constituting legal ownershipb : a legally just cause of exclusive possessionc : the instrument (such as a deed) that is evidence of a right
  
• 3a : something that justifies or substantiates a claimb : an alleged or recognized right

The meaning of "title" in this context is clear and barren of all ambiguity.

There's an old saying that's not only wise, it's based in "law". "Possession is nine tenths of the law". This is an ancient and established principal that still holds true today.

Now there's a phony baloney wives' tale for you. Steal someone's car and see how well possession works for you when the sheriff's show up. But this is orthogonal to the point at hand.

You have the burden to prove that something possessed by another is yours (and it's a high bar). This is why people would "stake out" their claim to land. They would mark it and declare it to be theirs. If someone else claims it they need to prove their "claim"...

None of this is relevant to the point, that I can see.

The ultimate conclusion of your logic from your other post is that nobody holds title (claim, right) to anything. It is a prima facie absurdity.

[osan]

What if "title" is the acorn which manifests the regulatory entitlement state?

The hell? The relevant definition of "title" is clear. It has nothing to do with synthetic entitlements concocted by psychotics, psychopaths, and criminals.

What if the only natural law right to property one has is in its use in good will; all else to the edge of the universe is simply common?

And why would that be? This is one of those pointless "what-ifs".

We should endeavor to keep this real.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

No, scooter. What you're quoting are the words of Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Which I placed into relevant context here with the thread.

My tolerance with the antagonistic, anarchist, trolls around here like you isn't what it used to be. So I'm going to give you fair warning should you choose to proceed with that kind of thing. My willingness to be nice is thinning out with some of you who really don't belong here and should be in an anarchist/anti-government board some place.

Its great when you just stop caring, do what must be done and kick some ass and make some gains, is it not?

Screw being a "good person", lets be great men.