Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 63

Thread: Immigration and Freedom

  1. #1

    Immigration and Freedom

    The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration

    By Andrew P. Napolitano


    ANALYSIS/OPINION:

    The tone of the debate over the nation’s immigration laws has taken an ugly turn as some office-seekers offer solutions to problems that don’t exist.

    The natural rights of all persons consist of areas of human behavior for which we do not need and will not accept the need for a government permission slip.

    We all expect that the government will leave us alone when we think, speak, publish, worship, defend ourselves, enter our homes, choose our mates or travel. The list of natural rights is endless.

    We expect this not because we are Americans, but because we are persons and these rights are integral to our nature. We expect this in America because the Constitution was written to restrain the government from interfering with natural rights.

    When these first principles are violated to advance a political cause or to quell public fear, those whose rights are violated because of an immutable characteristic of birth, not because of personal culpability, become the victims of ugly public indifference or official government repression. The American history of government treatment of Africans and their offspring and the European history of government treatment of the Jewish people are poignant and terrible examples of this.

    Today, the potential victims of public indifference and government repression are Hispanics in America. Hispanics here without documentation are being demonized because of the politics of nativism. Nativism — we are exceptional; we are better people than they are; we were here first — is very dangerous and leads to ugly results.

    The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution underscore the truism that all persons have the same natural rights, irrespective of where their mothers were when they delivered them.


    The right to travel is a natural right, even though it was not until 1969 that the Supreme Court recognized it as such. The court protects natural rights by imposing a very high bar for the government to meet before it can interfere with them, absent due process.


    The high bar is called strict scrutiny. It requires that the government demonstrate an articulated area of jurisdiction and a compelling state interest served by the least restrictive alternative before it can treat a person differently or uniquely because of his or her place of birth. A compelling state interest is one that is necessary to preserve life or the state’s existence, and it must be addressed using the least force and causing the least interference with personal liberty possible.

    This test was written so as to give the government wiggle room in a crisis and to make it intentionally difficult — nearly impossible — to write laws that apply only to discrete groups when membership in them is determined by birth.


    But the Constitution itself — from which all federal powers derive — does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration, only over naturalization.


    Thus, when the government’s motivation for enacting immigration laws is to further genuine compelling foreign policy goals, the laws will be upheld. But when the government’s motivation is nativism or fear or hatred or favoritism, strict scrutiny will operate to defeat those laws.

    Shortly after the first federal immigration statute was enacted in the 1880s — the Chinese Exclusion Act — the Supreme Court ruled that aliens, whether here legally or illegally, are persons, and the Constitution protects all persons from governmental deprivation of life, liberty and property without due process.

    In the same era, the court held that all babies born here of alien mothers are citizens.

    The Fourteenth Amendment requires this, and its language is inclusive: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States…” Though written to protect former slaves, its language is not limited to them.

    Some well-intended folks have argued that the language “all persons” doesn’t really mean “all” because it is modified by “and subject to the jurisdiction (of the United States).” But that language refers to the offspring of mothers who, though here, are still subject to a foreign government — like foreign diplomats, agents or military. It does not refer to those fleeing foreign governments. It does not — and cannot — impose an intent requirement upon infants.

    My guess is that nearly “all persons” reading this are beneficiaries of this clause because they — you — were born here.

    When the history of our times is written, it might relate that the majority repressed the rights of minorities by demonizing them using appeals to group prejudice — by blaming entire ethnic groups for the criminal behavior of some few members of those groups.

    That history might reflect that this was done for short-term political gain.

    If that happens, it will have changed America far more radically and dangerously than any wave of undocumented immigrants did.

    And that would be profoundly and perhaps irreparably un-American.


    https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...-give-governm/
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Clinton told an audience at a campaign stop Nov. 9, 2015. "And I do think you have to control your borders."

    Clinton voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which President George W. Bush signed after the measure cleared the Republican-held Congress. It authorized about 700 miles of fencing along certain stretches of land between the border of the United States and Mexico.

    The act also authorized the use of more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting to curb illegal immigration, and the use of advanced technology such as satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles.

    Then-Sen. Clinton voted in favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19. (Notably, then-Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer voted for it, too.)

    Originally, the act called on the Department of Homeland Security to install at least two layers of reinforced fencing along some stretches of the border.
    https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...r-wall-mexico/


    ____


    President Trump on Sunday quoted Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton supporting border security, pushing Democrats to relent in the standoff over spending on a border wall.

    The president used the quotes to hammer home his message that “walls work.”

    In a series of tweets, Mr. Trump quoted Mr. Obama in 2005 saying, “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked.”

    He quoted Mrs. Clinton in 2015 saying, “I voted, when I was a Senator, to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.”
    https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/trump-qu...n-border-wall/

    Related:

    The Feds Move Closer to a $15 Minimum Wage


    Why Is The U.S. Turning Away Immigrants While Employers Need Workers?

    "The administration is run by people who believe in sending blunt signals: economic boycotts, expensive new digital and physical surveillance, detention camps for poor people whom they don't want."
    Last edited by PAF; 08-12-2019 at 08:16 AM.
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)

  4. #3
    Get ready for the Judge Swamp label to get thrown in here from the resident Bolshevik contingent.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Get ready for the Judge Swamp label to get thrown in here from the resident Bolshevik contingent.
    + REP

    But because I support the RPF Mission and Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity, I will try my best to don't feed the trolls.
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)

  6. #5
    Article IV - Section 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;
    This is an invasion.

    It is undermining republican government by establishing UniParty communist rule in places like California and soon Texas.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Get ready for the Judge Swamp label to get thrown in here from the resident Bolshevik contingent.
    + REP

    But because I support the RPF Mission and Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity, I will try my best to don't feed the trolls.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This is an invasion.
    I attempted to not feed the trolls, however, since "this is an invasion (war)", I feel that I must respond to one who advocates killing and murdering without due process.


    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This is an invasion.

    It is undermining republican government by establishing UniParty communist rule in places like California and soon Texas.
    The one driving theme of practically every post you've made here in recent years is your own desire to undermine republican government.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    + REP

    But because I support the RPF Mission and Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity, I will try my best to don't feed the trolls.




    I attempted to not feed the trolls, however, since "this is an invasion (war)", I feel that I must respond to one who advocates killing and murdering without due process.


    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PAF again."



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    + REP
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PAF again."
    Disgusting. Reported to Mods.

    If you want to 69, get a room at a Motel 6.

  12. #10
    so?
    what is this "constipation" you speak of?
    we are in a bankrupt country being administered into oblivion, the "constipation" is as effective as sam i am...

    why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).
    The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide

    Baptiste said.
    At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Get ready for the Judge Swamp label to get thrown in here from the resident Bolshevik contingent.
    Yep- he usually arrives mid-afternoon, so be prepared.
    There is no spoon.

  14. #12
    Napolitano has been on our watch list for 18 months, at some point he had flipped his wig
    and become a NWO Globalist.
    We have thousands of laws that defeat our 'Natural Rights'.
    Keeping diseased felons, rapists, and socialists out of our country is no less a Natural Right of ours than
    the claim that allowing any thug to enter is a Natural Right of theirs.

    If you think foreign Countries have rights to your property, than you shall hand over your
    wives to them as well , it is no less a so called natural right for illegals to breed with them than
    it is for us to breed with them , if you believe Andrew N, has really uncovered
    logic here, then welcome to anarchy , which may not be the worst thing to have, but it
    is a million miles from where we are, and starting with allowing all manor of thugs to
    invade is the last place we want to start.

    I had the greatest respect for Napolitano until he morphed into an antagonistic Globalist, he
    has adopted the same role as the RPF Trolls.

    Lol at Superf and PAF , calling members other than themselves; Bolsheviks and Trolls .

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    Napolitano has been on our watch list for 18 months, at some point he had flipped his wig
    and become a NWO Globalist.
    Did he ever hold a different position than what he says in the OP?

    What Napolitano says in the OP was the prevailing view on this website from 2008-2012, and was defended in those years by regulars, including ones who have more recently adopted a more statist position and now sound more like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin than Ron Paul supporters.
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 08-12-2019 at 10:40 AM.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Yep- he usually arrives mid-afternoon, so be prepared.
    As well as a couple of his "followers"

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ender again.
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Did he ever hold a different position than what he says in the OP?

    What Napolitano says in the OP was the prevailing view on this website from 2008-2012, and was defended in those years by regulars, including ones who have more recently adopted a more statist position and now sound more like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin than Ron Paul supporters.

    I suspect they would throw Walter Block under the bus, as well.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...his-honorific/
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)

  18. #16
    Here's Walter Block on Judge Nap:

    From: D
    Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 2:39 PM
    To: wblock@loyno.edu
    Subject: Napolitano’s no libertarian

    I love these Trump years. Something about this guy’s presidency that forces people to show who they really are. You and Ron Paul, among others, remain as you have always been, very consistent Libertarians. Thanks!

    Others, like Napolitano? Not so much. His opinions on Trump and obstruction are very telling. More on that in a sec.

    First, let’s discuss the Libertarian credentials of someone who fashions himself as “Judge”. If I had been appointed or elected as a Magistrate by an Authoritarian govt. and then later became a Libertarian I don’t think I’d find honor in having my fellow citizens (rather forcibly) encouraged to call me “honorable” or “your honor”. And if Judges are honorable, then whose definition of honor do we mean? The government’s definition? Ha. There is no honor among thieves, as it’s said. Is it the same honor bestowed to John McCain, the bloodthirsty and peevish master of War? I won’t belabor the point; you get my drift. Regardless of any of his policy position or principles, Napolitano will need to ditch the Judge-for-a-criminal-cartel honor before he can seriously be thought of as a Libertarian.

    And then there’s his opinion that Trump committed obstruction of justice. That’d be a hard one to defend. If Trump committed no crime, then how could anything he did have prevented justice from being served? Justice WAS served. You can’t obstruct when there’s nothing to obstruct. In our legal world, no charges I’d the very definition of “exoneration”. Pax ! D


    From: Walter Block [mailto:wblock@loyno.edu]
    Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:53 PM
    To: D
    Subject: RE: Napolitano’s no libertarian

    Dear D:

    I agree with you on the obstruction business. But, my friend Andrew is still a libertarian, and a magnificent one. Just because I disagree with an eminent libertarian, doesn’t mean that they cease to be precisely that. Heck, I’ve disagreed with other leading libertarians, Rothbard, Hoppe, Kinsella, Paul, many more. If I followed your reasoning, I’d practically be the only libertarian in the world.

    Further, according to the principle you laid out (don’t use statist honorifics), Ron Paul, too, is not a good libertarian, since he often signs off as Congressman Paul. Ditto for his son, Rand Paul, who, after all, is a US Senator.


    No, not only is Judge Andrew Napolitano an excellent libertarian, he is one of our leading lights. I would hazard a guess that, next to Congressman Ron Paul, he is now the second most famous libertarian in our movement, well, maybe, tied with Senator Rand Paul.

    Best regards,

    Walter
    There is no spoon.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    + REP

    But because I support the RPF Mission and Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity, I will try my best to don't feed the trolls.
    You do not support the site mission any more or less than most other members here. All you are doing is parroting another member.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    + REP

    But because I support the RPF Mission and Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity, I will try my best to don't feed the trolls.
    The site mission does not call for you and Superf nor anyone else to call libertarians Trolls and Bosheviks.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    The site mission does not call for you and Superf nor anyone else to call libertarians Trolls and Bosheviks.
    I have never done that.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    You do not support the site mission any more or less than most other members here. All you are doing is parroting another member.
    PAF pretty clearly supports the site mission a lot more than many regular posters here, including some who post quite a lot. You may be right about "most," but most don't post as much as some who seem to be trying to take over the forum.

  24. #21
    Freedom of Association: candidates for office should be able to make whatever deals with whoever they want while they are running.
    They are still private citizens!

    SO Trump had every right to collude with Russia to win the elections.

    THAT'S FREEDOM!

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    The site mission does not call for you and Superf nor anyone else to call libertarians Trolls and Bosheviks.
    Etiquette calls for at least waiting until the second page before insulting others.

  26. #23
    So you must be for open borders right?
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    The site mission does not call for you and Superf nor anyone else to call libertarians Trolls and Bosheviks.
    Or for you to call others leftist, communists, SJWs, socialists.

    How about if EVERYONE stops calling names & actually has real & intelligent dialog about things. We do NOT have to always agree- BUT we can actually learn from one another when showing a little respect.
    There is no spoon.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    So you must be for open borders right?
    Just like most suicidal trolls.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    Etiquette calls for at least waiting until the second page before insulting others.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Or for you to call others leftist, communists, SJWs, socialists.

    How about if EVERYONE stops calling names & actually has real & intelligent dialog about things. We do NOT have to always agree- BUT we can actually learn from one another when showing a little respect.
    Stop acting like it matters. It doesn't.

    there is a reason you do not discuss politics or religion in bars.

    There is a reason you do not discuss politics, money or religion in social circles.

    Politics are necessarily hostile.

    And no matter what the rules, people are always very nasty to each other.

    If the rules are enforced with an iron hand, people always find a way to slip in as many insults as they can anyway.

    Welcome to the internet.

    You can talk like "OMG its driving people away!"

    But it isn't.

    They come for the hatred and flames.

    just

    like

    you

    You are just another loud screecher trying to tell everybody to shut up during a brawl.

    Eventually, the sceecher screams louder and louder, and the brawl quiets for a bit....

    ...and then, the screecher starts running their own jaw, about how they see things, (and what do you know, they aren't neutral at all) and the brawl instantly pops back up to full tilt again.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    Stop acting like it matters. It doesn't.

    there is a reason you do not discuss politics or religion in bars.

    There is a reason you do not discuss politics, money or religion in social circles.

    Politics are necessarily hostile.

    And no matter what the rules, people are always very nasty to each other.

    If the rules are enforced with an iron hand, people always find a way to slip in as many insults as they can anyway.

    Welcome to the internet.

    You can talk like "OMG its driving people away!"

    But it isn't.

    They come for the hatred and flames.

    just

    like

    you

    You are just another loud screecher trying to tell everybody to shut up during a brawl.

    Eventually, the sceecher screams louder and louder, and the brawl quiets for a bit....

    ...and then, the screecher starts running their own jaw, about how they see things, (and what do you know, they aren't neutral at all) and the brawl instantly pops back up to full tilt again.
    LOL- whatever.......

    There is no spoon.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    So you must be for open borders right?
    I support the approach of the man this website is named after.

    There was a time when we would have people come here from time to time calling for tougher immigration restrictions and criticizing Ron Paul for being for more open borders than any of the other Republican candidates and the regulars here would rally to the defense of his libertarian positions. Some of us are still doing that.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    The one driving theme of practically every post you've made here in recent years is your own desire to undermine republican government.
    "I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Reason: Immigration Law Restricts Freedom for the Rest of Us
    By dannno in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-02-2010, 06:58 AM
  2. Issue: Immigration: ron paul and illegal immigration
    By gaazn in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 08-15-2007, 01:47 PM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-03-2007, 05:02 PM
  4. Issue: Immigration: Illegal immigration, is Pauls stance effective?
    By Lord Xar in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-14-2007, 09:15 PM
  5. Issue: Immigration: 2007 Immigration Bill
    By RonPaul4President in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-12-2007, 07:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •