Judge Napolitano weighs in on the controversial Arizona immigration law. Judge Susan Bolton recently blocked Arizona from enforcing the new policy.
The Arizona legislature deemed the law, "critical to address serious criminal, environmental and economic problems Arizona has been suffering as a consequence of illegal immigration and the lack of effective enforcement by the federal government."
What are your thoughts on Judge Napolitano's verdict?
I love how the Judge is almost gleeful as he lends his vast knowledge to such serious topics as the Supremacy Clause, the status of immigration policy, and even secession. I also agree with him that Arizona's law is not only unconstitutional, but it encroaches on civil liberties of the many in an attempt to deal with the few.
He was interviewed by Ralph Nader not too long ago on CSPAN. It was a great interview and the Judge was jubilant throughout, speaking of liberty with a smile.
Nader interviews Napolitano
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/61406.html
Wrong! It is true that the federal government has powers solely for dealing with foreign states but those powers are not general but specific so he can't just make a general argument that it interferes with the US goverment's powers to deal with foreign nations unless it inteferes with a specific power granted to it in the constitution.
The tenth amendment makes it clear that any specific power not granted to the federal government is reserved for the states and their is no power to regulate immigration granted to the federal government.
T-Paine... you crack me up... so I guess immigrants don't have natural rights? Just because they aren't citizens they don't have the same natural rights that we do?
We shouldn't just let free markets handle migrant workers? They wouldn't be coming here if the laws of supply and demand weren't at work.
Plus all the crime they try to blame on immigrants is simply a side effect of the war on drugs, that is the cartels causing the crime... not people coming here to work hard in sub-minimum wage jobs.
We should repeal the minimum wage and open the borders COMPLETELY to anyone who wants to work here. I'm not saying give them amnesty or citizenship... but we need to balance things out so the supply of work visas matches the demand for them or we will NEVER have any semblance of rule of law when it comes to our immigration policy.
The Tenth amendment has nothing to do with this, everyone keeps quoting the Tenth lately even when it doesn't apply... some of you guys are starting to sound as bad as the Obamabots....
I was rather annoyed that most of those I saw defending Ron Paul voting against the animal crush videos said they agreed with him because it violated the tenth, but no mention from these people it obviously violated the FIRST... but I guess you guys don't bother reading that one, you just quote TENTH for everything, right?
I imagine in your world it is A-OK for the state or federal government to force you to produce papers on demand like this was Nazi Germany?
Man.. this is one area I must really depart from the paleocons about... and makes me wonder if I can really trust them...
Posted 07/30/10 4:05 PM spongessuck Glen Mills, PA
It would be unconstitutional for the Federal government to have this law, but not Arizona.
I'm all for open borders (if we eliminate Welfare), and I agree that the law is immoral, but the freedom of Arizona to make this law should be respected.
If you don't like the law, don't go to Arizona. I, for one, don't plan on it.
T-Pain, our federal government is checking and balancing itself on this issue. The restriction of legal immigration by congressional law is being checked and balanced by the executive. Immigration to our country is good from a free market perspective.
damag0r: how many countries around the world require you to carry a passport while you visit? It should be no different in the US. If you can't produce papers in other countries, you're in a whole heap of problems... the least of which is just being deported. If you're caught in Mexico illegally, you get 2 years in jail!
The Federal Govt. doesn't stop local authorities from enforcing immigration laws, therefore this law is legal and Constitutional because it does not give AZ any authority beyond what the Federal laws already provide for. In fact it's more restrictive than the Federal law on immigration. Feds don't need a reason to pull you over or ask for your papers... this law required some other form of lawful contact before they could even ask.
Also, have you noticed the Feds aren't doing a thing about sanctuary cities? Those cities are openly violating Federal laws!
If they want to do this right, they should seal the border completely with limited checkpoints for people to enter and leave the Country legally. Then, thru attrition, deport anyone here illegally as well as enforcing laws preventing companies from hiring illegals. They also need to pass a law (or an amendment) stating that just because a child is born on US soil to people that aren't citizens, that child does NOT get US citizenship.
There are plenty of ways to apply for legal citizenship.. but with open borders, people just go for the easiest way by sneaking over.
And how exactly would it not be unconstitutional for Arizona to have this law?
It violates DUE PROCESS. SCOTUS already figured this one out in the 60's... the law in Arizona creates a situation where you must PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE.
What constitution are you reading? The "I-completely-ignore-any-idea-that-the-bill-of-rights-applies-to-the-states -even-though-the-14th-P&I-explicitly-does-just-that" Edition?
Why don't you reread the constitution and the federalist papers? Oh.. and also the FOURTEENTH.. So you just pick and choose which parts of the constitution you like and don't like?
That's like saying just because all of europe has socialized healthcare we should too, and is a total strawman... good try though.. (I guess...)
Your fantasy of "sealing the border" is just that, a complete fantasy. It isn't doable. People will get around it, the demand is there... if we don't supply the visas then they will get in illegally and there will continue to be a huge black market for document forgery.
Again.. the sanctuary cities would be a moot point if we just supplied enough work visas. They only exist because of our stupid immigration policies...
Most illegal workers do not take advantage of the welfare state either... only a small minority...
You say "plenty of ways", but it takes 130 years according to the government for a SKILLED Mexican worker to get through immigration... why don't you actually LEARN something about our immigration policy instead of listening to Rush Limbaugh?
Watch this stossel show:
www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=O-AO9dR1t5g
The obligation of the federal government is to protect the states from the forces of invasion. In the absence of that protection there remains no alternative but the states to attempt to protect themselves from the forces of invasion.
If they are prohibited from doing so there only remains nullification or secession.
The CONSTITUTION Was MADE SOLEY For A MORAL PEOPLE, When The People CEASE TO BE MORAL The CONSTITUTION Is Of NO EFFECT.. ~ Thomas Paine, Founding Father
And I assume it doesn't matter if the law is totally discriminatory and doesn't reek of a "paper's please" society? What about the cases of natural born citizens being harassed and placed in JAIL until they had a family member come and produce their birth certificate... you don't think these abuses won't get EVEN worse under the new law?
But that quote doesn't mean the constitution ceases to provide them with legal recourse. Also, who are you to say these workers are immoral for violating an immoral immigration policy?
Or are you saying the people who like the AZ law are the immoral ones? If so... I would agree.
Posted 07/30/10 4:45 PM Al Langhans Elizabethville, PA
Ok, I read the Constitution and all its amendments on this site twice now. The only thing I could really find about "immigration" is this:
Under the 14th amendment.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
***
Section 1 seems to me that if you are born or naturalized as a citizen in the United States and the State where it occurred then, yes you are a citizen. Section 5 makes it seem like it gives Congress the power to pass the laws of immigration? Wherby the 10th amendment does not apply, since naturalization is a law regulated by Congress.
I think the real argument Arizona is pushing, is "DO YOUR JOB" to the Federal govt.
Now, if Arizona feels threatened to the point where they feel they are being invaded by foreign entities. There are provisions in the constitution which force the Federal Govt to act on that to protect Arizona.
Thank you... this is why I am always just totally confused when people try to say this is somehow a TENTH amendment issue when it is clearly part of the enumerated federal powers... not to mention the commerce clause probably gives them that power ANYWAYS... (read Federalist #42) If I remember right it says something about using the commerce clause to ban the importation of slaves.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa42.htm
Posted 07/30/10 4:51 PM Al Langhans Elizabethville, PA
Lets just stick with the enumerated federal powers in the 14th amendment Section 5. The commerce clause is a whole different relation to this and would truly muddle the field of discussion.
Enough with the attacks. I live in AZ and most of the posters here DO NOT.
damag0r is right on the point of visas, etc, except for the use of welfare by the illegal population. Most of them DO use welfare because they do not earn very much or they have an anchor baby that allows, at least healthcare for the children and mother.
We need more discussion of how to handle this problem instead of bickering!
The bill1070, originally, mirrored federal law. Therefore if our law is bad, so is the federal gooberments. The tenth amend does apply here. The federal gooberment has usurped powers, long ago, that were for the people or the states. Now we are truly left with a patchwork of double standards, redundancy, and confusion all caused by the federal gooberment's usurpation of power.
One must really live in a border state to understand that this is not an Illegal immigration problem, but more of an economic refugee problem in which we must first fix the foundation which, in my opinion, is drug prohibition and labor laws.
Mexico has vast natural resources and plenty of land for agriculture. There would be plenty of work for her citizens if THEY could eliminate the drug cartel dictatorship they have down there.
I happen to agree with Michael Barry. The Judge believes in the so called "incorporation doctrine" of the never ratified 14th amendment. He believes the Bill of Rights apply to the states. He is wrong. For more information on this subject please see Raoul Berger's "Government by Judiciary" chapter 8 at:
as well as Kevin Gutzman and Thomas E. Woods "Who Killed the Constitution page 43, Thomas E. Woods' "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" chapter 7 and Kevin Gutzman's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" chapter 10-especially page 170.
Also see Timothy Baldwin’s article: http://florida.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/mcdonald-v-chicago-the-great-mis understanding-of-state-sovereignty/
We sometimes forget the preamble to the Bill of Rights because it is seldom printed. Here is the Preamble to the Bill of rights:
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
The "its" on line 8 refers to the federal government.
John Baeza
352-442-8177
Posted 07/30/10 4:59 PM Al Langhans Elizabethville, PA
well wasn't that easy. Now where is that gazillion page book on our immigration policy that Congress is supposed to be enforcing?
I think really going through all our immigration policies and just cleaning it out to make it clearer would help everybody. Then the congress can adjust it for these times.
IMO, putting illegals on the tazpayers' dime in prison is just a bad idea. It's not a solution. How will putting these people in prison here deter them from entering the country illegally? In comparison to where they've come from, an American prison might actually be an upgrade. I know this for a fact because there have been cases of illegals here in Florida who were found living and working in horribly unsanitary and uncomfortable conditions, worse than a prison.
If we had a free market in labor, this wouldn't be a problem. If we didn't have a welfare state, this wouldn't be a problem. As it is, there's probably no solution to illegal immigration. Government created this situation, and government can't solve it except by getting out of the way.
Posted 07/30/10 5:03 PM Al Langhans Elizabethville, PA
I think that was one of the Judge's points. Its a CRIME in Arizona to be illegal, whereby on the federal level you just get deported. Am I right or wrong on that?
Posted 07/30/10 5:05 PM Al Langhans Elizabethville, PA
This is a link to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services Law section:
When the founders and framers spoke of "invasion" they were referring to military invasion with military force to take territory. There is no "invasion" going on from the founders and framers point of view. Drug crimes are not an invasion to take territory-they are there to make money. End the so called "drug war" and the violence will go away almost overnight. That's where the free market comes in.
I am truly amazed at the amount of energy that goes into this argument of immigration, we are on the verge of collapse do to welfare state practices, corporate fraud at the largest levels in history.
Arizona has the right to protect itself anyway it wishes and unless you live there and are experiencing what the people of Arizona are experiencing how can you possibly know.
Then there is the argument of the Constitution on a Liberty site. This is evidence there is something unclear with the constitution now isn’t it.
And above it all is morality like anyone source could show this after decades of religious wars on the premise we are right and you are wrong with no such authority.
Natural law is as moral as any would have to be if applied and is not defined by anyone group.
These posts right here explain it to me, all have to be so RIGHT, not one question of why one thinks what they think but a jump to be right over another.
When I ask, when or what is it we need to put our attention on to resolve these disputes? Clean up the Constitution and put it in a more simple form so it paints a very clear picture, what?
When will we find agreement on Liberty (reducing Government rule and its size) to reflect our Constitution?
When will we reach agreement of a Republic as defined?
I agree people should be able to come here legally so why does it need to be more than that and until we reach full on Liberty in a full on Republic will any of this be possible?
I highly doubt it until we all decide something is very wrong and then put our differences aside and achieve Liberty in this country once again.
So here is the first question and please reflect on this, so what is it you need from me?
Posted 07/30/10 5:15 PM Al Langhans Elizabethville, PA
I'm here to help, lets figure this out. We aren't perfect, we are just humans. So lets clear up the confusion, go over existing laws and amendments and figure out a Liberty solution from that.
I would be hesitant to argue with the Judge. I can testify since I was there that wetbacks were no problem at all before the War on Drugs and Welfare - both of which were unconstitutional on the part of the central government.
They just came up and worked - paid no taxes - sent money home to better their families - and we welcomed them.
I guess what disturbs me about these anti-incorporation folks who also at the same time ignore the 14th... especially when they start quoting stuff from people who have the last name "Baldwin". I worry that these people are just theocrats who wish to do things in violation of the first, establishment clause. So they can run their state like a theocracy and continue to violate the natural rights of others to enforce their singular view of morality.
What is it that motivates you people to argue against incorporation? Why shouldn't it extend to the states and protect us citizens from encroachment on certain natural rights? I can't see anything that isn't nefarious about it honestly... it just seems like you guys are statists... but decentralized statists... explain to me why I'm wrong please? and why my fears are unfounded?
Rothbard says that natural rights are a consequence of natural law. Since we aren't talking about natural science I don't accept the idea of either and look for morality outside of myself. Introducing morality really muddies the issue whether you are talking about a consensus morality that is just made up as we go along or (as you put it)a singular view of morality.
And, as far as ignoring the 14th; I would like to ignore the whole damn Constitution since all it did was legitimize the central government and start all of the abuse.
You don't have to be a statist to want your government more local and closer to the people. Makes for open doors.
"I think that was one of the Judge's points. Its a CRIME in Arizona to be illegal, whereby on the federal level you just get deported. Am I right or wrong on that?"
Yes, that is correct. The Arizona law as written, under my interpretation is creating a crime where you have to prove your innocence.
Also... I don't really like the federal law either... but what I'm saying is... even if the federal law is wrong... two wrong don't make a right so it seems like a moot point anyways.
Especially since SCOTUS dealt with this one already where they said that police must have reasonable suspicion a crime has occurred before detaining/searching someone otherwise it violates due process and I agree completely with this decision. I wish I could remember the name of the case... but it was a 1967 decision if I remember correctly... I'll look it up a bit later...
The problem is this law can't be used to gain reasonable suspicion unless like a police officer OVERHEARD someone say "I'm an illegal".... if it were used like that I'd have no issue with the law... but I don't think that is how it is written or will be enforced... they'll just ask "paper's please" of any mexican looking people and detain them until they can prove their innocence... I know people have tried to swear up and down that isn't what this law does but that is what it seems like to me...
But this isn't about giving the federal government power, this is taking away power from the government in general... the bill of rights just sucks power away from whatever government it is applied to... I believe government should be mostly local too... I just don't believe we should trust local governments not to violate the natural rights of the people, which I see as being part of the point of the federal government.
I don't believe the federal government should have any say in what the states are doing unless it is one of their enumerated powers OR the states are violating their citizen's natural rights. I just don't see why it is acceptable to even allow the states to do this.
Some of you here have the idea that because a law is wrong that makes it unconstitutional simply because it is wrong. The government's laws are created through the democratic will of the people and no matter what shape those laws have they have to be followed. To do otherwise is to ignore the right of the people to shape laws that they want because the state can realter them whenever they want.
The constitution is a law created through the democratic process and it can't be ignored by the government and if you don't like any laws in that then alter them through the democratic process itself but do follow the constitution.
I know that illegal residents have natural rights and those rights give them the right to resist unfair authority over their lives but that doesn't stop the state from using its monopoly on violence to enforce its laws. The illegals have a right to resist and the state has the right to use its violence to attempt to squash that resistance if it can. That is the nature of the state versus society.
@dam
"I don't believe the federal government should have any say in what the states are doing unless it is one of their enumerated powers OR the states are violating their citizen's natural rights. I just don't see why it is acceptable to even allow the states to do this."
You say it is not acceptable but how can the government act in any way other than what the law says it can act. To allow that kind of thinking is to invite a dictatoship where authority is not used to execute the legal mechanics of its laws but the personal will of the people in power.
You seem to be completely talking over me. I assume this is because you don't really have any real rebuttal to my arguments.
"Some of you here have the idea that because a law is wrong that makes it unconstitutional simply because it is wrong."
Never said that, but you should also consider the extreme vagueness of the ninth.
"You say it is not acceptable but how can the government act in any way other than what the law says it can act."
Uhm... 14th... read above some maybe??? P&I clause provides federal legal recourse for people whose rights have been violated by the states. The Due process clause guarantees citizens of the states due process, which the AZ law violates... read above.
Also, 14th clearly enumerates control over immigration to the federal government...
I get the point of your responses, but they just don't make any sense in context of what my arguments were.
@dam
No it doesn't. It just declares that anyone who is born here is a citizen. It does not apply to people moving here and taking up residence illegally.
I contend that most of the objection of this comes from the fact that people believe that it is racism and should be stopped. That does not apply to why the government can use its force because it is the law that determines when the government can use its force and nothing else. The government's force is limited by the law itself and anyone who attempts to water down the law is allowing the government to act whenever it wants without any restraint.
Personally, I prefer the negative consequence of a bad law than a government that thinks it can act where there is no law.
"To allow that kind of thinking is to invite a dictatoship where authority is not used to execute the legal mechanics of its laws but the personal will of the people in power. "
Wait.. sorry.. I just had to respond to this one too because it is completely ridiculous...
OK.. so I'm arguing the states should not be allowed to violate the natural rights which the constitution clearly protects and are clearly extended to citizens of the states through the 14th P&I clause and you are accusing me of inviting thought that could invite a dictatorship?
Isn't it much more likely your way of thinking could create authoritarian rule at the state and local level where the citizens would have no legal recourse which to protect themselves by? REALLY NOW? Give me a break.
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
*PERSON* not Citizen...
"Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Also, I'm unclear about Federalist #42, one could make a good argument the commerce clause does also give this power to the federal government, if I'm interpreting it correctly.
Forgive me if anyone's mentioned this already, but doesn't the 4th Amendment protect against unreasonable search and seizure? Pulling someone over because they are Mexican is racial profiling, and you can have all the "but we'll use it judiciously" provisions you want in the law; it's still unreasonable search and seizure.
Unless the 4th Amendment is suspended for
a) non-citizens?
b) only applies to the Fed and the State police can do whatever they want?
Good question, but I think T-paine doesn't believe in incorporation so the bill of rights doesn't apply to the states in his world. It is the 14th P&I + Due Process, that seals the deal for sure incorporation is real, so even if you want to make the argument it is a 4th amendment issue (and it might be) the 14th is still even more applicable here.
I provided a reading list of authors who cite sound sources about the 14th amendment being ratified "at the point of a bayonet." I provided the link to the text by Berger. Others who oppose the "incorporation doctrine" include Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman-and I provided titles, chapters, and even pages for their work.
You may think it is funny but the truth is the 14th amendment was never properly ratified and even if it was it did not "incorporate" the Bill of Rights and apply them to the states. Some states even had state religions into the early 1800's.
I also provided the preamble to the Bill of Rights and pointed out in line 8 that the federal government is "its."
Our government is supposed to be federal, not national.
I would suggest those who are interested should read the volumes I've cited.
Then repeal it, but I like it. If you wish for the states to be allowed to be authoritarian democracies where 51% of the population can violate the rights of 49% because there is nothing forbidding it in their state constitution and have no legal recourse to challenge violations to their rights.
Then yeah, if you really are so against the 14th, and you think it was done invalidly, then again try to repeal it... otherwise you might as well just relive the Civil War, I guess we should just do that, huh?
Not sure we should open the box on the counter-revolution by the Federal Government against the Confederacy. I seem to remember that the Northern States used one of the enumerated powers of the Federal Government to pass tariffs that punished the Southern States and led to secession and eventual war. Another reason not to have a central government. As usual, it is always about money.
I guess I just can't take JohnBaeza's position seriously because if you want to be that insanely idealistic... why don't we also just give back all the land we stole from the Native Americans to the 5 that are still left? This stuff can't be righted without a time-machine, to focus on such things is absurd. The 14th was ratified, if you don't like it, then try to repeal it.
BillNM: As for a new civil war... I somehow doubt such a thing would break out today just because some people were upset about the 14th. John's whole train of thought here is just delving deep into territory of "#$%@ that can't be fixed/righted".
Also.. the more I think about it.. the more I think Commerce Clause doesn't apply... it would allow the federal government to regulate international importation and immigration... but what goes on inside of AZ state borders it has nothing to do with... The point I'm making here is I think immigration was intended to be a federal and not a state issue even not considering the 14th.
However, the 14th probably does this even more clearly.. and even if it doesn't do that... at the very least the AZ law violates the 14th's due process clause if it is enforced the way I fear it will be enforced, that is without regard to having any real probable cause or suspicion other than physical characteristics.
Ron Paul writes (cite below): "If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases – not only when it serves our interests."
Ron Paul, "Lessons From the Kelo Decision" http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html
Some other good reads on the 14th amendment:
“The Squalid 14th Amendment” by Gene Healy online at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/healy1.html
14th Amendment: “A Libertarian Defense of ‘Kelo’ and Limited Federal Power” by Stephan Kinsella online at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella17.html
"Tom Woods Worries the New York Times" ://www.lewrockwell.com/epstein/epstein16.html
"The Truth About the 14th Amendment" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
http://www.constitution.org/14ll/truth_14th.htm
Incorporation and the Fourteenth Amendment: The 140 Year Old “Riddle”August 18, 2008 by Stephan Kinsella:
http://blog.mises.org/8409/incorporation-and-the-fourteenth-amendment -the-140-year-old-riddle/
The Institute for Justice on the Wonderful Congress of 1866
April 10, 2008 by Stephan Kinsella:
http://blog.mises.org/8013/the-institute-for-justice-on-the-wonderful -congress-of-1866/
I can't help it that Ron Paul and other paleolibertarians seem to have a blind eye concerning the 14th. I still love Ron Paul, but I must disagree with him on this. He isn't right about everything.
I guess just because Ron Paul and Tom Woods have that opinion you shouldn't have to think for yourself? Even Ron Paul I'm pretty sure would encourage you to make up your own mind on it.
Also, paste all the paleocon musings on the subject you want, it still doesn't change the fact the 14th was clearly meant to incorporate the bill of rights to the states.
To be honest, I'd trust Clarence Thomas' musings on this matter even if I don't agree with him on everything either.
I have already read this material-and much more because I had mixed feelings at first. After digesting the material I have made up my mind-quite some time ago. It just so happens that these authors and others feel the same as I:
Ron Paul
Thomas E. Woods
Thomas DiLorenzo
Kevin Gutzman
Brion McClanahan
Stephan Kinsella
Raoul Berger
Again with the "well other paelocon organizations who all basically are in the same group agree with me".
Why don't you explain to me directly why the 14th doesn't apply here when it is clearly a violation of the due process clause of the 14th? Or are all of your arguments based entirely on it not being ratified properly? If that is your only argument I will say it again, you can't right this without a time machine (or repealing with 2/3rds majority), it has been ratified...
A video by Jack "The Southern Avenger" Hunter explains the troubles with the 14th amendment here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOz0jnOxPg4
John Baeza
352-442-8177
Posted 07/30/10 10:09 PM JohnBaeza Spring Hill, FL
I would probably be considered a paleocon. You have never once responded to any of my points-not all had to do with ratification- so, I put forth other points of view to try to make my stance clearer to both you and others. I do not offer my self up as some Constitutional scholar but as an average person trying to understand the issues. I cite my sources correctly. I have an opinion and it is based on my reading. I once believed the Bill of Rights applied to the states, but after reading the material I cited I have changed my mind. I have included numerous cites, the preamble, a video, and many authors for you and others to assess my point of view. That is what we do. We just don't say I believe this and not cite any authors who provide original sources. Knowledge is hidden in books, you just have to read them and make your own decision. I have cited my sources, have you?
Yes, I'm sure most of us already know what Jack Hunter thinks, and I disagree.
Also 14th doesn't "trump state law whenever it sees fit" as Jack Hunter says, it only trumps state law when state law violates the bill of rights...
Also, I laugh at the *OH NOES* gay rights paranoia. The 14th P&I does clearly nullify state laws defining marriage as a violation of the first establishment clause. Not to mention licensing marriage probably violates that as well, including 9th amendment.
And Yeah, the 14th has been misused before, but it doesn't mean that it should be ignored just because it has been blatantly misused, that would be like getting rid of the commerce clause just because they abuse it, we wouldn't have a functioning government without it though.
The only case I can think of where the 14th was abused was here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
While I disagree with this usage I would agree with it being used to strike down state laws which define marriage (a religious thing).
I can't help but wonder if all the 14th amendment bashing comes from not wishing to scare social conservatives if they found out the 14th does prohibit the states from say regulating marriage or sexual behavior, if we were to actually follow the constitution.
For example... the SCOTUS decision to overturn state sodomy laws was incorrectly argued... but had it been argued that it was a violation of 9th amendment reserved negative rights of the individual + 14th P&I then I'd agree.
Posted 07/30/10 10:33 PM JohnBaeza Spring Hill, FL
Alas, hyperbole does not sit well with me when I discuss a Constitutional matter. And you never, ever, cite a real source for your understanding of the subject.
The founders and framers, to Madison's disappointment, gave us a federal government, not a national one. If you understand the difference you will at least understand-and may not agree with-my point of view.
I've listened to the video and read all of the coments above. Many good points are made, but the crux of the matter is that the Federal government has been AWOL on the issue of immigration for at least the last 40 years. From what I've read The Immigration Act of 1965 opened the door to anchor babies, of which we currently have upwards of 300,000/year in the U.S. - which is more than the entire amount of legal immigration into the country immediately prior to its passage. I hope that Arizona adjusts its immigration law to remove the criminalization of being there illegally, and pick up the pace in deporting illegals.
Our government at all levels has so many other areas that need fixed besides the way it deals with immigration and the minimum wage that adopting open borders and eliminating the minimum wage before addressing the more serious problems with our corporatist-driven economy would be a complete disaster for most working Americans in the private sector.
The text of the United States constitution Fourteenth amendment. I'm sorry, did I need to cite that source?
Also, I wasn't really intending to engage in hyperbole. Sorry if I was, not sure where I was, but I have been pretty caught up in this argument.
Really.. if you read anyone's opinion, EXCEPT the paleocons and social conservatives, their interpretation of the 14th will jive pretty well with mine. You don't need me to google opinions about why the Slaughter House cases incorrectly gutted the 14th for you. There are plenty of opinions on reason.com that jive with my interpretation too...
You see, I'm not a conservative. I'm a classical liberal/libertarian. Read Hayek's essay "Why I am not a conservative". I guess I'm a "cosmolibertarian".
I agree that the Arizona law is unconstitutional and poorly written, but "immigration" is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment, so it is not "enumerated". See my Recent Member Post, "State Immigration Powers" on 7/23/10.
Here is your 14th amendment:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
But what I don’t see in it is what keeps these illegal immigrants from abusing the welfare state, or what protects a state form Criminals from crossing the border or what protects the citizens of Arizona from going broke because of the abused systems. It all has to be to protect everybody no matter how bad it is. If it is really bad go live in it if you support these ideas. Don’t speculate, all I hear is more argument why it is all wrong, is there any reason in this country for a state to protect itself?
Or is everybody going to banter back and forth about one piece that is broken amongst several thousand things that are broken all stemming from one thing. What is that one thing you ask, how about the acts of tyranny stripping you of your rights in your states and in your country. But hey who cares, keep bantering back and forth about a state you do not have to personally deal with. If all the damn laws are so bad, come up with laws that are so good. But some where on planet earth must be the right to protect ourselves and if you give that up you don’t have anything, no lousy constitution, definitely no Liberty and property rights well you might as well find a window and throw that carp out too.
Show us all here how to protect the people of Arizona from the over run of illegal immigrants or just keep arguing about what the 14th amendment says. There it is read it, how do you protect Arizona citizens?
The only problem in this country is we have so many laws that counter the Rule of Law we cannot get over ourselves. It is amazing to me no solution can possibly exist because everyone is so damn right and no one can agree. And this is exactly why America is in the bottom of the toilet bowl swirling.
Put yourself in Arizona and how do you fix it with all the broken laws of today to protect yourself, you are so damn sure what is wrong with it, why not figure out what is right about protecting your state.
I would agree... I like the 14th except for how it handles citizenship and also it isn't as clear as it could be on immigration... but even without any of this I don't see why the AZ law doesn't violate due process...
Posted 07/30/10 11:31 PM Al Langhans Elizabethville, PA
You're presuming the local authorities are guilty of violating due process before they've even had the law in effect. So you're doing exactly the same thing you're railing against. Guilty until proven innocent eh? There's no proof whatsoever of any violation of due process. The DOJ has investigated Sheriff Joe for over 18 months and couldn't find any due process violations.
As for the 14th amendment you love so much, might I suggest reading a little history on HOW it was ratified? Southern states were forced to ratify it at the barrel of a gun. They were denied access to the Senate and House until they ratified it. They were also basically put under martial law until they ratified it.
here's just one article about it: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/healy1.html there are many many more.
Back to the topic.. yes immigration is broken.. but until the violence and steady stream of illegals coming over the border is stopped, you can't possibly reform it. It's got to be a multi pronged enforcement. Border must be secured, illegals must be incarcerated (eventually deported), businesses must be made to comply with federal laws against hiring illegals, the welfare state must go away (never going to happen) and the immigration path needs to be cleaned up. (the drug war also needs to come to an end).
The States should be allowed to secure their own borders and enforce these policies as they see fit...as long as they aren't violating civil rights. Let's face it, it may not be politically correct but the vast majority of illegals will be mexican and everyone knows it... call it racial profiling if you want but it's really just common sense. The police aren't going to just randomly start stopping all hispanics asking for papers... there aren't enough police to even come close to doing that.. but in their day to day duties of enforcing other laws.. they'll find out that some people aren't legal.. whether they don't have a valid form of id (and you must have one if you're driving around) or they come right out and tell the officer they're here illegally... I say give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt... if they screw up, they'll be punished.
Posted 07/30/10 11:39 PM Al Langhans Elizabethville, PA
This is an interesting part, its the last part of the arizona bill.
Sec. 11. Severability, implementation and construction
15 A. If a provision of this act or its application to any person or
16 circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions
17 or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid
18 provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are
19 severable.
20 B. The terms of this act regarding immigration shall be construed to
21 have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law.
22 C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal
23 laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and
24 respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.
25 Sec. 12. Short title
26 This act may be cited as the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe
27 Neighborhoods Act".
This part makes me a feel a little better... I didn't see this part before:
J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH 34
FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL 35
PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES 36
CITIZENS. 37
However... I'm not entirely convinced... yet.
Brian they are already guilty of violating due process before even enacting the law:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knv6nDZX1mc
Keep in mind I don't agree entirely with this guy, but watch the case with the legal citizen who was detained. Most certainly a violation of due process. I don't see why this law won't invite them to just keep doing this more and more... haven't heard anything about those cops getting in trouble for this.
Sorry if I'm not very trusting of AZ state government considering they have some of the worst civil rights violations going on in their state because of out of control sadistic prosecutors. I probably read an article a month on reason dealing with some abuse going on in Arizona... isn't Sheriff Joe in AZ?
Brian:
"As for the 14th amendment you love so much, might I suggest reading a little history on HOW it was ratified? Southern states were forced to ratify it at the barrel of a gun. They were denied access to the Senate and House until they ratified it. They were also basically put under martial law until they ratified it."
Then amend/repeal or build a time machine.
Posted 07/30/10 11:50 PM Al Langhans Elizabethville, PA
and thats what the court system is for. To sue those who abuse the rules. Then you get the court rulings, which can go to the Supreme court which then set the precedent.
Posted 07/30/10 11:53 PM Al Langhans Elizabethville, PA
We can discuss philosophically the pros and cons, but there has to be a middle ground where it actually works and helps the people of AZ deal with this problem.
One guy's claim doesn't make for the widespread abuse you're claiming will happen. In fact, the Federal law is much worse, they can stop anyone for no reason at all. They aren't required to have reasonable suspicion. If what this individual claims really happened, it's a bad deal and those responsible should be investigated and punished if found guilty.
But the AZ law mirrors federal law but gets more restrictive in that authorities must have some form of lawful contact before they can even question you about citizenship.
What it all boils down to is we must start upholding the rule of law and the laws already on the books. Too many have turned a blind eye to these issues and now it's gotten way out of control.
We need immigration policy that lets both skilled and unskilled workers obtain visas easily and quickly, and amend the 14th as to not support amnesty. Otherwise any attempt to enforce the law will just make the rule of law even more of a joke because our immigration policy isn't enforceable.
Well I guess I should say, amend and make more clear federal role in controlling immigration and to make it clear that it wasn't intended to support amnesty.
We definitely need an overhaul of our immigration policy with regard to skilled and unskilled labor, especially in light of our current job market that has left 15 million Americans unemployed and/or underemployed.
Unskilled American labor is getting crushed by the millions of migrant illegal aliens that come across our borders. The economic climate in Mexico, and parts of Central and South America is such that more than 10 million illegals are living here as migrants working for much less than our pathetic minimum wage taking many formerly good paying jobs from Americans. Much of the reason for illegals to come to America is the screwed up mess in their countries that was caused by the corporatist-driven "free trade" agreements such as NAFTA, and CAFTA, and China joining the WTO with their 200+ million migrant workforce that is being severely exploited to manufacture most of the imported junk that is on store shelves
Also, abuses in H1-B visas are rampant. These visas were supposed to allow companies to sponsor highly-skilled immigrants to work for them when there was a true lack of qualified Americans available to hire to do the job. However, these visas currently allow mostly entry-level foreign-educated professionals with average skills to enter our country even when there are many highly qualified Americans who can't find a job in their field. Just look around and see how many highly-skilled American engineers over the age of 40 that are unemployed or underemployed while Wall Street CEOs continually whine of a shortage of new engineering graduates and lobby for an increase in H1-B visas.
@dan
You are arguing that the government should be allowed to operate outside the mechanichal limitation of the law itself at which point the people don't are not required obey the law but the personal authority of the people in power. I would call that a dictorship.
I believe that PERSONS who are here illegally are given the due process of law. The police catch, run them through ICE, and then arrest/deport them just as the law proscribes.
Well I think the main problem is minimum wage, and if Americans aren't willing to work as cheap as Mexicans then I see it as being in our interest to let them take the jobs citizens here do not want. Plus if you remove minimum wage then citizens would be able to take these low skilled jobs too... also closed borders keeping labor costs high just gives incentive to businesses to outsource overseas where we can gain no benefit from.
I'm a fan of NAFTA either, but free trade isn't the issue... it is mainly the war on drugs and the corruption it has created.
You somehow jumping to dictatorship is rather absurd. You still aren't making any sense here. You are the one who wishes to allow the state governments to override an individual's rights just because their democratically elected legislature wishes to. The situation you would create is much more likely to create authoritarian rule because there wouldn't be legal recourse in some states for individuals whose rights have been violated by the tyranny of the majority.
As for police "catching" them, what happens when they detain someone who they have no evidence against other than he can't produce proper papers, but there is no proof he is an illegal immigrant either? What if he doesn't have a wife to go fetch his birth certificate for him?
Also.. if you haven't noticed a lot of the immigrants went back because of the recession... so it really makes me wonder why there are so many illegals in AZ causing so many problems and it seems obvious to me that it is
#1 the War on Drugs and the drug cartels
#2 a SERIOUS shortage of visas; not having enough visas available to satisfy market demand EVEN with such high unemployment.
Also... the way I look at it is... if you don't believe in open borders then you pretty much don't believe in free markets...
I believe in free markets, but the reality is that our economy is not a free market and has not been a free market in my lifetime our yours. It is a corporatist-driven market rigged to the advantage of the politically well-connected who have profitted immensely from the labor of illegal alien migrant workers here and the 200+million migrant workers in China - neither of whom have little, if any, economic freedom. Allowing American wages to be suppressed by the exploitation of these migrants does little to establish a free market but greatly reduces the economic freedom of millions of affected Americans.
If we had a true free market, getting rid of the minimum wage would be a moot point because most Americans would not agree to work for such a low wage (our current $7.25/hour minimum wage) with the high cost of living we currently have in the U.S. Wal-Mart and other minimum wage employers in the U.S. are esentially being subsidized by our Welfare State since it is virtually impossible to live anywhere in our country on such a low wage without government assistance to provide for basic needs unless one lives as a migrant.
Adopting open borders and getting rid of our pathetically low minimum wage would be a disaster for most Americans working in the private sector, forcing millions more to rely on the Welfare State for basic needs. Support of open borders and eliminating the minimum wage in our current corporatist-driven market would further enrich the politically well-connected at the expense of everyone else and would create tens of millions more that were dependent on the Welfare State, greatly reducing the individual liberty that members of C4L are working towards achieving in our country.
"because most Americans would not agree to work for such a low wage (our current $7.25/hour minimum wage)"
Obviously we are all spoiled rotten and this is why immigrants take so many unskilled labor jobs. So I suppose it is better they export all the call center jobs and factory worker jobs to India and China where they will work for far less than minimum wage? Also... isn't the minimum wage helping contribute to the high cost of living? What about teenagers living with their parents?
Also, how are you going to keep them out? That's my biggest issue with your argument.... I don't believe any policy no matter how draconian will matter and any attempt to successfully enforce our horrible immigration policy will just result in lost civil liberties.
Also, arguing that the migrants are being exploited for voluntarily working under minimum wage sounds a bit lefty... I don't see why you... a third party should be declaring these people "exploited" when they have consented to work for lower than US minimum wage. Who are you to interfere with their transaction?
1. According to Locke, man in a state of natural law consents with others to form a society of enumerated powers.
These powers include the mutual protections from the predations of others who have also given their consent (crime), and from the predations of others outside the society which has been formed (invasion, war).
There is no natural law right belonging to all of humanity to join any such society so formed.
It would be entirely consistent with natural law for Congress to prohibit immigration entirely.
2. This idea is incorporated into the Constitution In Article I, Section 8: "Congress shall have the power....
to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization"
The idea that anyone who showed up on the doorstep would automatically be entitled to citizenship is absurd.
Congress in its wisdom or ignorance (depending on your point of view) has established such rules and limits and the executive branch for many years has refused to enforce those rules.
Persons entering the United States in any manner other than according to those rules may rightly be said to have invaded the United States. A person who enters your home without an invitation while you are present is called a "home invader."
The Federal government forbidding Arizona to enforce its law which mirrors the federal law is equivalent to the police refusing to enforce laws against home invaders, and preventing homeowners from resisting the intruders.
I must reiterate my point above....the only resolution of the matter from the point of view of Arizona appears to be nullification or secession.
To mitigate the problem I say again get rid of the unconstitutional drug and welfare laws. Further to nullification or secession would be for the Border Patrol to simply deputize all law enforcement officials in the border States. But, heavens - there is turf to protect.
Thank you and Michael well stated, we must be able to take in all the points and accumulate some answer that allows a state to protect itself regardless if it is the immigration problem or not.
We are also sure that many laws in our time are bad at best and some of the worst protect criminals thus the expansion.
But we must get back to where we are granted the
he right by Rule of Law to protect ourselves against very poor laws and bad Government and it does start at the state level in our communities.
Posted 07/31/10 11:43 AM seamus.bradley New Port Richey, FL
There is another option that is not being addressed. If the states that have a border to Mexico (or canada) were to buy up all the land touching the border, say a 5 mile swath then they can pass a simple No Trespassing Law and can arrest ANYONE for trespassing. Then when you are custody as per Federal Law they will discover your illegal status and turn you over to the federal government. If the Feds don't want to take them (as often times is the case) then you can still prosecute them for unlawful trespassing and deport them after sentence is complete, by simply dropping them off at the border checkpoint and turning them over to the Mexican Police. I know this isn't optimal but it is a start.
It would be nice if the Judge actually read Article 6 before he started running his mouth:
Article 6:
...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary nothwithstanding.
...
Any law enforcement official can enforce a Federal law (because it is the Supreme Law of the Land) so long as that person receives "due process" which would be the opportunity to provide documentation (like I have to provide when a lawful contact is made with me) in a court of law. And I don't see where equal protection is not extended as ILLEGAL ALIENS are given the same opportunity as I do to demonstrate compliance with the law. I was considering watching his show but I think I will defer that decision.
"Obviously we are all spoiled rotten and this is why immigrants take so many unskilled labor jobs. So I suppose it is better they export all the call center jobs and factory worker jobs to India and China where they will work for far less than minimum wage? "
Granted, there are many Americans that are spoiled rotten - but they are NOT the ones that are working for our pathetic minimum wage, and NOT the millions that just can't find a job in our screwed up economy. Among the spoiled rotten are the Wall Street bankers that should rightfully be out of work - instead they were bailed out by the taxpayers, almost all of whom are much worse off economically than the bankers. The CEOs of most corporations and the upper managent are also spoiled rotten - there is no way their wages/compensation would be anywhere near the level they are without the exploitation of migrants here and in China - neither of whom have much economic freedom, or much choice but to work for their pittance of a wage.
The jobs that aren't able to be outsourced like construction jobs are the ones that are affected by the millions of illegal immigrants who work for less than minimum wage. Implementing open borders and getting rid of the minimum wage would not bring many, if any, outsourced jobs back to the U.S. because the cost of living is much higher here than in China and elsewhere in SE Asia. Revising our corporatist-driven trade agreements is needed to accomplish this, along with reducing government spending, taxes, and onerous regulations.
The real problem with our economy, is the globalist/"free trade" mess that we currently have. It is not free trade at all to trade with China which is ruled by a bunch of totalitarian/communist elitists that routinely exploit more migrants in their country than the total number of workers in the U.S. job market. How many of the 200+ million Chinese migrant workers are FREELY choosing to work 15 hours/day, 7 days/week just to survive?.... NONE!!! How many illegal immigrants FREELY choose to live as migrants while working for such a low wage?....NONE!!! Illegal immigrants and Chinese migrants are people just like you and I, but they live in or are from countries that have little economic freedom and end up being migrants because it is the best of their bad options.
How many master degree engineers in China are FREELY choosing to work for $730/month ($4/hour if they are only working 40 hours/week) to make many of the products exported to our country, when thay can't afford to buy them themself?
Seriously, we used to have enough sense to not trade with the old Soviet Union where one of the common sayings was "they pretend to pay us - we pretend we work" and the quality of their consumer products was pathetic. But now we've exported our manufacturing sector enmasse to China (and much of our sevice jobs to India and elsewhare in SE Asia) where the working conditions for the masses and the quality of manufactured products are no better than they were in the communist Soviet Union. And this has happened because we have a government "of, by, and for the politically well-connected" where our "representatives" routinely trade their Congressional votes for large contributions to their campaign funds.
The starting point to regaining our liberty is NOT adopting open borders, granting an unlimited number of work visas, and eliminating the minimum wage - all good sound free market ideas that should be implemented if we truly had an otherwise free market (which we don't) - but replacing the overwhelming majority of our "representatives" with people that will take their oath of office seriously and strictly follow the Constitution while still representing the best interests of the vast majority of their constituents.
And damagOr, I'm not a "lefty" but a constitutionalist, a social conservative, and an unemployed engineer with a master's degree and many years of work experience, that closely follows the business news, the stock market, and news from many reliable sources online, after giving up on primarily listening to Fox News years ago when I realized it was just a different slant on corporate and big government propoganda. There is little liberty in our current economy that has at its foundation the exploitation of the masses to enrich the profits of the well-connected.
If you think it is a good idea to eliminate the minimum wage, I suggest that you sit down and add up the cost of basic needs in your area of the country - food, the cheapest housing available, health care, cheapest mode of transportation, etc., and see how many hours you would need to work to cover these basic expenses if you were making minimum wage ($7.25/hour). I'm sure you will find that it is next to impossible to cover basic needs without relying on government assistance if you don't have access to a pension or some other means of wealth that you have already saved.
If you can't live off of the low paying job then don't agree to work for that cheap, that simple. I was never saying you should be forced to take minimum wage jobs or sub-minimum wage jobs. I know I could live in a tent for $3/h in SC. It wouldn't be pleasant, but I could do it, and maybe it would help show that I'm worthy of a much better paying job?
I'm surprised I'm even having this argument re: minimum wage on a supposedly libertarian site? I'm flabbergasted anyone can still make the argument minimum wage does anything besides:
1) make it hard for unskilled workers and teenagers to get employment
2) drives up the cost of living for everyone, thus making any increase in minimum wage almost immediately moot once the inflation propagates throughout the economy.
Also, I fail to see how "social conservatism" is compatible with libertarianism, it's a brave new world buddy, stop with the pointless moral panic.
But I suppose I need to know what your definition of social conservative is, to some it means the whole Goldwater, "taking personal moral responsibility" which I believe in, but it sounds like you don't, because you're busying yourself with the morality of payrolls etc...
Or the modern day "social conservatism" that is about locking up people for smoking pot, having anal sex, and writing offensive literature. Plus a pre-disposition to any kind of moral panic that is currently popular.
You need to read again what I said. I'm all for a free market, but adopting open borders, reducing the minimum wage, and handing out work visas with our currently distressed job market will reduce individual liberty of many more Americans.
Just as our government should not be policing the world, it should not be in the business of trying to fix the economies of other countries. Our government is to be of, by, and for the people, and its first responsibilty is to follow the Constitution AND govern in the best interests of its citizens. Adopting open borders and eliminating the minimum wage as the FIRST step to create a free market as you are proposing is definitely NOT in the best interest of the vast majority of working Americans!
I didn't say that you said anyone would be forced to take a minimum wage job - but the choice for many Americans, even many who have college degrees, is to work for minimum wage or not work at all in our currently distressed job market.
And I could live in a tent in PA on $3/hour but I couldn't feed my family on that wage unless I become better at wilderness living, and health care would not be in the budget, so if I went to the ER for treatment I'm sure you as a taxpayer wouldn't mind paying my bills. (Thanks. I didn't pick up on your implied generosity in your previous posts. :)) That is what is done now, and most C4L members including myself aren't happy to pick up the tab for someone else's health care. I pay for my own and it costs 30% of my entire family's yearly living expenses - but to not have health insurance is more expensive unless the government picks up the tab, and it puts you one accident or serious illness away from bankruptcy.
As I understand it Ron Paul is more of a limited government, strict constitutionalist with a rational plan to transition away from our welfare/warfare state more than he is a strict libertarian as you stated you are. What you describe as me "moralizing" is nothing more than facing reality as it is, and offering real solutions for Americans to increase their liberty and decrease their dependence on government. Again, adopting open borders and eliminating the minimum wage in our current economy would most definitely decrease individual liberty of many Americans as many more would have little choice but to accept government assistance.
Out-of-control government deficit spending and excessive printing of fiat money is driving up the cost of living in the U.S. much more than having a pittance of a minimum wage ever did. Besides, if eliminating the minimum wage of $7.25/hour were the reason for our high cost of living, why hasn't our country's dependence on imported goods produced by workers making $1/hour or less driven our cost of living down to a reasonable level? Your argument makes no sense.
What has made it difficult for unskilled workers and teenagers to get a job is an oversupply of workers and an undersupply of jobs - the first being made worse by allowing our country to be invaded by 10 million+ illegal aliens, the latter caused by the wholesale outsoucing of our manufacturing sector and many service jobs to SE Asia.
I didn't say I was a libertarian, but a strict constitutionalist and a social conservative - these are compatible as long as one doesn't over step the constitution to enforce one's own view of morality. Did I tell you how you should live? If you choose to live in a tent and take a job for $3/hour because that is what you enjoy, then do it. But most people, including most illegal migrant workers, don't freely choose to do so. They do so because it is the best of their bad options.
Anyways, I'd just like to say.. the debate has been fun. I personally love arguing about borders/immigration policy because both sides have such good points. So I enjoy any debate of it since neither side is really so crazy I think...
As far as reason/logic goes it seems about a tie in my mind, so to break that tie I will go with my ideology... which is:
Liberty, the consequences be damned! It's a brave new world! Just because we don't know what might happen, doesn't mean we shouldn't just let it take its course! Society and economies evolve to fit the conditions, a free market in labor is just as important as a free market in anything else.
Plus in my mind natural rights/natural law are universal and should be applied to anyone who manages to make it inside our borders. This doesn't mean they should be granted citizenship or amnesty... but it does mean people should be able to move freely as they wish, regardless of any imaginary lines drawn on paper.
The debate has been interesting - but I stand by my rational approach (at least to me it is rational) to increasing individual liberty for the vast majority of working-class Americans.
I hope it isn't too hot in your tent this summer - here in PA spending the winter in a tent would be brutal. We had multiple snow storms of 2 feet or more this past winter. :)
The only limitation the 14th amendment can apply to any state or federal government is when either attempts to negate the rightful citizenship status of anyone. It does not limit either the state or the federal government from applying its laws to any of its citizens unless those states are attempting to deny the RIGHTFUL citizenship status of anyone. Notice I said rightful citizenship because people who did not go through the correct process are not rightful citizens of either the state or federal government. This includes illegal residents.
I think that from a legal/Constitutional point of view the Judge is right; however, I live in the Phoenix area and I would like to see the law (SB1070) enforced. It is my understanding that there is not to be any wholesale rounding up of illegals. The law only gives the police authority to ask for papers if they have been picked up because of suspicion of breaking another law. And believe me there is a lot of crime committed here in Phoenix and much of it happens in "Latino" neighborhoods so it will be nearly impossible not to have some form of profiling going on.
The reason, as I understand it, that it makes it an Arizona crime to be illegal is not so they can be deported by the Arizona police but so that they can be held until the Federal authorities can get around to taking over deporting them if that is the case . Many times the Federal authorities take too long to come into the case and the illegal immigrants have to be released. Gov. Jan Brewer has been literally begging the Federal government to do its job and this law is the result of her being ignored or given the run-around or just plain lied to.
Someone said: "When the founders and framers spoke of "invasion" they were referring to military invasion with military force to take territory."
Well, you should hear the demonstators and see their signs: "This is OUR land and we are going to kick you (non Mexicans) out!", U.S. flag with Mexican flag sewn to the other side or Mexican flag given the same or more prominance than the U.S. Flag.
They will not be happy until they take over the entire U.S. (including PA and SC)and turn it into a third world country like the ones they are escaping from.
And what about the rumor that Obama is going to give them amnesty with the stroke of a pen through an executive order? Then all these arguments about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, etc. will be just empty rhetoric because BHO has spoken.
One last thing... I keep hearing people saying they are worried these immigrants will take their jobs basically...
But isn't it even worse to give incentive for business to export whole lines of production overseas etc? Isn't that all closed borders and minimum wage do? Have you thought that this side effect is far worse? And that it would be better to have people living not exactly comfortably, but still working here and driving the promise of something better in the future? What if these immigrants create a business with the money they make in the US and create more jobs and contribute to the economy even more than you would if you were given the same job...?
This is the problem.. you're looking at it like a zero sum game... that's how a lefty looks at it... which is why I will contend modern social conservatives are really actually leftist in their own way... as they don't have real belief in free will of the individual.
Reason was right last year when they had an article proclaiming "the rise of protectionism" (again). Or something to that effect... in times like this both the left and right get very protectionist in their economic views/policies, but such policies have been proven time and time again to just distort the market and lead to ruin.
Interesting you show up again right after I said I was basically done arguing... but *sigh* you had to show up again with more nonsense.
OK...
What part of "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." do you not understand? Do you just choose to ignore it? Are you sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nanananana" while you read that section and then pretend it doesn't exist?
"They will not be happy until they take over the entire U.S. (including PA and SC)and turn it into a third world country like the ones they are escaping from."
If our immigration laws continue to not be enforced, if our legal immigration is not reduced significantly to reflect our distressed job market, and our trade laws not changed to benefit the vast majority of American workers the U.S. will soon be a third world country. We already have the worst ditrubution of wealth of any develped country - and the more our economy is rigged to enrich the politically well-connected at the expense of everyon else the worse it gets.
But that has nothing to do with immigrants, that has to do with horrible "macro" economic policy. We're turning into a third world country because of the rule of law being a complete joke because of numerous things... laws against fraud not being enforced... while they still try to fight the unwinnable "war on drugs"... and our bad immigration policy helps to diminish rule of law... but I could go on and on about how there is no stable rule of law that makes any sort of logical sense anymore... this just drives uncertainty in the markets and in all aspects of life...
Also, the policies of the federal and state governments incentivizing debt and running up insane debt...
The decay of rule of law and our debtor society/nation will be what turns us into a third world country, not immigrants... your assertion that immigrants from Mexico will somehow turn us into a third world country is completely absurd! The problems we face are caused by a myriad of other things, not immigrants looking to either work hard here and go back to Mexico, or ones looking to become permanent citizens.
Posted 07/31/10 7:03 PM Al Langhans Elizabethville, PA
Ok question about the 14th. Why does it start with citizens and then ends referring to persons? Did the 14th amendment framers consider that having citizens 4 times would be redundant? So instead they had persons?
To ANY and ALL fellow ^Ron Paulite's^/^Ron Paulista's^ who have commented already (and future ones, for that matter) in regards to this thread topic/debate. The following are some links that I think will be helpful with respect to the various sides/"camp's" to this issue. NO CATCH . . . NO STRINGS (I am just the messenger here!!!!) -- meaning that the following is meant as an F.Y.I. & F.W.I.W. On an unrelated note this entire thread/debate has led me to the belief that we DEFINITELY need a *U.S. Constitution*--Civics "literacy" Test like we do for Driver's Education and/or the renewal of one's Drivers License at the local Secretary of State's Office (for the entire Public and All Citizens basically!!!!). Anyway's, titles of the links are in the parentheses immediately beneath it. ENJOY!!!!
VERY SINCERELY,
Emre N. Kazan
(a.k.a. ^R_R_I_M_M_L_P_BATMAN^)
http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/United_States/Society_and_C ulture/Cultures_and_Groups/Cultures/
(*United States > Cultures*)
http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Regions/Latin_America/Society_and_Cu lture/Browse_By_Country/
(*Latin America > Society and Culture > By Country*)
**** http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/Mexico/Society_and_Culture/
(*Mexico > ^Society and Culture^*)
http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Environment_and_Nature/
http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Environment_and_Nature/?b=20
(*Environ ment and Nature*)
http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Cultural_Policy/
(*^Cultur al Policy^*)
http://dir.yahoo.com/Government/U_S__Government/Politics/Parties/
http://dir.yahoo.com/Government/U_S__Government/Politics/Parties/?b=20
(*U.S. Political Parties*)
http://www.coha.org/
(*Council on Hemispheric Affairs*: Aims to promote the common interest of the hemisphere, raise the visibility and increase the importance of the inter-American relationship, and encourage the formulation of rational and constructive U.S. policies towards Latin America.)
"This is the problem.. you're looking at it like a zero sum game... that's how a lefty looks at it... which is why I will contend modern social conservatives are really actually leftist in their own way... as they don't have real belief in free will of the individual."
I can assure you that I'm no leftist - but I am a realist and stand by comments as being the most rational way to transition our economic mess into increased individual liberty for the vast majority of Americans.
If 8 million+ Mexicans (~ 80% of illegal immigrants are Mexicans) stayed in their country and pressured their government to fix the mess in their economy most eventually would be able to achieve a standard of living in Mexico as good as they currently have in the U.S. Plus they would have the added benefit of living in a Spanish-speaking culture as many apparently prefer.
I mostly agree with your last post, with one exception. Outsourcing of jobs and insourcing of workers via the invasion of illegal immigrants and excessive legal immigration just makes our already distressed job market that much worse for working class Americans. As I said before, adopting open boders, increasing the amount of legal work visas, and eliminating the minimum wage is NOT the FIRST change that should be made to work towards a true free market economy if the goal is to increase liberty for Americans. (See my previous posts - I feel that I'm repeating myself and am getting weary of this debate.)
Yeah, I understand and mostly agree. The AZ law just kind of rubs me the wrong way... maybe I'm wrong for "meddling" in the affairs of another state. It is just I see various worrisome trends in government in the state of Arizona... and there are now cases of vigilantes in Utah rounding people up or reporting them anonymously and this just does not sound the USA I want to live in... that is all.
I guess I'm saying I agree it isn't the first thing to do in our current situation, and other things need to be fixed first. But the problem is also all the other side effects like the document forgery markets it creates as well as making the rule of law look like a joke when so many people will get in despite our best efforts. Again I question our ability to even enforce our current policy without granting more visas...
Anyways I'm done for real now... and also... sorry if I offended anyone... especially T-Paine... I was probably a bit mean to him at times...
I don't take your comments as "meddling" - one thing I like about the C4L blog is that ideas can be discussed freely and most the time it is done in a civil manner.
It is certainly true that dealing with foreign powers is one of the only powers specifically designated to the Federal government. But the Feds have not kept up their obligations in this arena.
The lengths to which Arizona is willing to go to, in their estimation, secure their liberties, breaks my heart. I think this is a bad law for many reasons, some of which were cited by Judge Napolitano in the clip above. But what choice do they have? Sure, they could threaten to secede; but is that strictly necessary? Is the United States effectively a failed state, in terms of the government being able to effectively govern and maintain jurisdiction over its designated areas of authority? At what point do the various states have to start taking care of themselves, and what is the best way to go about it?
Words fail me in expressing just how significant this occasion is. "The Arizona situation" signifies the first chapter in a very strange, new national tale. The questions we ask ourselves and the answers we come with will set the tone for states' rights for the next generation. These debates will either dash our hopes for the restoration of the Republic or gird us as armor to weather the storm as the Empire collapses around our ears.
Holy crap I wish we could get this much discussion on Liberty, hell with Liberty lets fix immigration first that way all the legal and illegal immigrants can die with us and then we wont have to worry about who is right and who is wrong or the 14th amendment, or the constitution for that matter. It will become the North American union because we were just too busy.
The freedom of others to come into this country far outweighs or own freedom. This is mind blowing, there is no reason to wonder why we are right here today, the wonder has shined the headlights right at me.
I mean Batman how many links is that, you been saving these up or did you just go out and retrieve all these?
107 seven responses and still no agreed upon answer.
I wonder how long it can go?
How far can it go? Hmmm, well it has been a healthy discussion and many points and counterpoints. And there have been some references to the causes for the effects we are suffering presently. To be redundant, illegal immigration (trespassing) is not the problem, it is the symptom.
And all of the theoretical discussion regarding the Constitutional Amendments is fruitless since the central government doesn't give two hoots in a whirlwind about the Constitution in the first place.
The problems are caused by bad law emanating from Washington DC all of which are antithetical to liberty. Everything that is done up there is driven by self interest. As long as they have the lender of last resort and the Federal Reserve Note they will pursue whatever adventure they please and stick the people with the bill through inflation.
Total collapse may be our only option at this point. It will be painful as the wagon unloads and all those who have been sitting on their asses have to start pushing.
Posted 08/01/10 12:33 AM Al Langhans Elizabethville, PA
I think the key to take away from this, is that we all have different opinions. I hope we are for Liberty, since we are Campaigning for Liberty. But I know I never really learned anything in the public school system about LIBERTY. Education, Dr. Paul has said it, the people need to be educated about what the Constitution is, the idea of Liberty, etc to have the REVOLUTION that we desire in people's minds to get us back to what the founder's had intended. That is where we are, I learned alot in this discussion.
These discussions of such fiery talk surely happened with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, every important document. So here we are trying to figure it out ourselves as normal people. Lets grow from this and shed those titles of conservative libertarian, social libertarian, paleolibertarian, etc etc. All those do is divide us into our collective groups so the progressives can target us. Sorry, but not today or ever. We are here for LIBERTY even if we have different understandings of that.
Thank you Bill, Al and john you all make great points and I agree discussion is necessary to resolve conflict which obviously immigration is or there would not be this much response. I agree this is very much a symptom and could we have this much discussion about Liberty itself? Making it clear and getting those who agree to pursue as Ron Paul himself does.
I agree we can win this Revolution but not with out really looking at the cause and the cause should very much be up for discussion. In fact some have brought it up but few put much in unless it is immigration and then WOW! it goes crazy.
I look at my freedom in the very near future being gone well past my time. As many freedoms as I grew up with whether good or bad I would not change and I cannot imagine people with out them. But I see it around the world and in history so I know it to be very possible right here to have no freedom at all. To be dictated to, which in some cases we are all ready and this is an indication it is transforming and not in a good way.
I also believe this Federal immigration debacle is very much being done on purpose to incite hate, to create large controversy and as I watch it unfold it is happening and all I hear is someone wanting to be right rather than look at the source of our real problems.
I also hear it blamed mostly on Government as well, like they are capable of causing anything on their own when in fact some private enterprises in the form of Corporations have done more to influence this country into this direction more than any one. One thing I am sure of, they are far from free market thinking and all about the upper hand and manipulation only using Government as their shield in which to hide behind.
But who wants to take this on in the chance they could loose their jobs? Which by the way many of us are attached too are we not?
I in my own experience have looked at this deeply and asked myself how far am I willing to go to bring about not only the idea of Liberty but the actual product of liberty as in achievement with the recognition of what this really means. I am willing to experience it all to achieve such a victory for me, for you, for our children and the future of this country and eventually this world. But it will take understanding and a willingness to to stand by giving up many of the luxuries we once thought we had earned but in essence was misleading by Corporate tyranny put here against the people of this great land. Every time I hear the word terrorist I get a Corporate image in front of me and when I look at the collaboration of Corporate and Government is paints a very big picture. I know it is being looked at but I dont really think it is really understood on a very large scale, but it is very much the cause of these symptoms including immigration.
YES WE CAN WIN THIS REVOLUTION and we must.
Posted 08/01/10 09:21 AM FreeGhost Kings Mountain, NC
1. Need the war on Drugs.. particularly the war on Marijuana. Squash the Drug Lords and their gangs.
2. Prosecute Employers who use illegals for labor. Isn't this a form of slavery?
Step 3? You got me.
Posted 08/01/10 09:21 AM FreeGhost Kings Mountain, NC
Why were these Marijuana laws put in place? Or other drug laws for that matter? Who is really responsible, Government or Corporations?
I would read some History on Mr. Ford on alcohol for fuel.
Free market verses Corporate authority. There is some interesting stories on how prohibition was started, by whom and why as well the timing of Marijuana laws which are still the harshest of all drug laws, why?
Who interests were best served by these laws and who actually prospered because these were put in place. Two industries actually and both working together for monopolies, oil and drugs.
Now look at their influence over history and in legislation. There is something to be said about the results of history that linger and can be looked at that give us answers.
Personally for me it was jaw dropping when I saw the connection and how this ties into the banking industry and Federal Government since the 1800s.
The results today are loud and clear of this connection and this influence.
The drug war is false and very profitable for some, VERY! How are all of these associated and which entity ties them together?
I say look folks these are very important in history and how we have arrived at this moment.
I didn't read all this garbage nor watch the judges video but the bottom line is that one of the biggest problems in this country today is immigration. Our American culture is being destroyed because you have people from other places coming in here with absolutely no allegiance to our ways whatsoever. They don't even care to learn our language. These people vote for whatever president will continue to give them amnesty and welfare. Anyone that tries to attack Arizona's right to defend itself is not an American but a damn idiot and that includes any idiots that joined this site. The only way we are going to save this country is to seal off the border and reestablish our economy by providing jobs to American born citizens not Mexicans with green cards or illegals. It's not our damn fault their country is utter shit that they need to come over here.
Are we being invaded? Your damn right we are. People are getting murdered in their homes by some crazed Mexican illegal because Osama doesn't give a damn about immigration. Drug lords and criminals too. I hope that Arizona stands its ground and not only that continues the trend all over the country and sticks it to the Federal Government. Or else it will be civil war regardless of whether or not that puts us at risk from foreign invasion. We will either restore this country peacefully or forcefully from the corrupt politicians and parasitic Americans.
Posted 08/01/10 10:38 AM Paul Revered New Richmond, OH
Good judges do what they should do and interpret law. “The law is only Common Sense in the highest degree” Chief Justice Taft. This is a great responsibility and it is not up to judges to make the law, but to interpret the decisions that came from we the people and the fundamental basic rights of natural law as the Constitution provides. Once States ratify the agreement of handling non-citizens then judges within jurisdiction are to interpret the intent of these decisions. The reason this is so emotional is we feel for all the people regardless of citizen or not. It comes back to unconstitutional laws that have convoluted the jurisdiction and basic rights. Harming can be unintended or intended consequences of arbitrary law. The law of the gang leader and the misguided representatives guilty of insurrection through arbitrary law is very damaging to system of government. Once we the people make the decision to get back to the basic’s of common sense, will our laws become clear and enforced. Our opportunity is squelching the opportunist of poor representation, drug lords, central bankers, etc, regardless of where arbitrary law gets root. The amendments that are truly ratified are bench marks to hone our common understanding of the law or unit of reference. The seventh amendment helps us understand our duty to interpret what is right or wrong making legal or illegal. Civil argument culminates laws that judges are interpreting and guiding the arguments until we get it right or until we get the right judge without prejudice of favor. Common sense tells us that harming innocents is not something that should be legal by arbitrary decisions.
We can not agree to channel decisions away from we the people and basic rights set forth in the Constitution as we are seeing through arbitrary laws of insurrection focused for unfair favor.
You are reacting. The Arizona law is an attempt to patch a broken system and it won't work any better than the central government law. You have to go to the CAUSE of the problem and that is the unconstitutional drug and welfare laws!
If you had bothered to read all of this "garbage" you might have noticed that a lot of us see this issue pretty clearly. As long as you concentrate on enforcement you will be shoveling shit against a high rising tide!
And, RonPaul-aholic, all the Judge is doing is interpreting the law as it presently stands. Don't blame him - he gave you the solution - SECEDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@damag
No one's life, libery, or property was taken away from them without the due process of law because the processes that the law says that these things can be taken away were followed. You might not have liked the process of law itself but it was followed. The whole point of that was to prevent the government from operating in the absence of law where it could take away those things at will isntead of by law. That is not happening in Arizona.
You hit the nail on the head. Corporatism is the antithesis of freedom, liberty, and respect for the rule of law and its primary goal is to maximize profits for the few politically well-connected elitists at the expense of everyone else.
It is very hard to discount all of he evidence that points to this and we shouldn’t.
If we changed Corporate law alone in this country to exclude Corporation so that all companies has to exist as individuals that own them instead hiding behind some name as an individual entity would sure change our idea of free markets wouldn’t it? Then exclude all Government agencies except for the 3 branches by our Constitution and this world would be begin to prosper. Thats how strong this vacuum is in this country, its gotten so big it is sucking the life out of the planet and not just America.
One of the things that really woke me up was the true stories of Ford and the oil cartels demanding oil for cars. Ford being defiant attempted to make competition but these bankers and oil thugs would have nothing to do with it and the effects are our dependence on oil and ridiculous marijuana laws that have fully corrupted the Government and these same idiots because they profit from both sides which would lead to them actually fueling it. And we put this much energy into immigration, this is the least of our worries. Drug companies are as corrupt and infiltrated the FDA and now we will have Obamacare to break the nation.
Many know why but not many will stand up loud and clear because of the fear of terror itself, interesting.
"I mean Batman how many links is that, you been saving these up or did you just go out and retrieve all these?"
^Willij4lib^, the "answer" is . . .
* I just went out (in a very spontaneous fashion) and retrieved all of them!!!! By the Way, love everything and agree wholheartedly that you have stated!!!! I agree that we need this much volume and "passion" discussed and devoted to *Liberty* (I believe the only way to come about that is Impeachment of Bush & Co. [which will ultimately in turn make Obama and his company think twice about doing all of the shady, deplorable, despicable, reprehensible, insulting, Traitorous, and Treasonous crimes that they would attempt (and have attempted) to do. The Key Big lynchpin to all of this. The Massive High Crimes of Treason (a.k.a. *High Treason*) which False-Flags fall under in more ways than one. Anyways, that is why I do and post what I do. If you have any further questions just message me!!!! ****^^^^THANKS & PEACE!!!!^^^^****
As an American living overseas, the idea that immigrants have natural rights is somewhat laughable outside the US. I lose my "American rights" when I move overseas and accept the laws of that country. I am ok with that, if not I am free to leave - quickly I might add.
To argue that Mexicans have the same rights of US citizens I would disagree based on precedent and you dont need a trial to prove that your are a citizen of the US. You only have to show documentation. Its not more difficult then that. If they deserve a trial then what about the detainees at quantanamo? Dont they deserve a trial. They are accused of a crime.
You can not have it both ways. Time to make a stand and I support New Mexico's attempt to create clarity.
We break and uphold the Constitution at the same time, but when you have a gun to your head you forget about you rights or anyone elses. I think in New Mexico they are tired of the violence.
I do agree that if we end the war terror and the drug war, this problem goes away. I think we should concentrate on that instead of the 14th.
I am disheartened to see so much negativity regarding our new law. Most of you simply don't understand the problems we face as a border-state.
1. Are we a sovereign nation?
If yes, then why don't we protect ourselves?
2. Is this AZ law the solution?
Of course not. It does not address the border at all and ICE won't cooperate anyway. Its not like AZ can deport anyone...they can only try to turn them over to federal officials.
3. Does the AZ pre-empt federal law?
No. AZs law is nearly verbatim to the federal law and only reinforces it.
Here is your simple border/immigration solution free of charge:
Secure the border. Gain operational control of the border region. Right now the drug cartels have operational control and dictate the flow of illegals (drugs and people).
Next pass mass amnesty legislation BUT with the following provisions:
1. If you stay you get legal status but can never become a US Citizen. (Can't VOTE for dems)
2. You have the option to self-deport and return to the US legally and wait the 5 years and gain US Citizenship.
the next following steps (in no particular order, in part because I haven't decided which will be "step #'4's' and step #'3's'", and even if I had, it would by and large be inconsequential/irrelevent/unimportant in the Grand Scheme of Things) to solve this problem (at least in the short and medium terms [note: the following steps ARE FAR FROM BEING EXHAUSTIVE!!!! IN OTHER WORDS, I COULD/CAN LIST MORE STEPS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE TAKEN [THIS RELATES TO THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE PUZZLE: ****^^^^THE LONG-TERM!!!!^^^^****]!!!!). HERE THEY ARE (again, in no particular order). ENJOY!!!!:
(3.) ABOLISH and/or tear to shreds N.A.F.T.A. + Get the United States out of N.A.F.T.A. (North American Free-Trade Agreement)
(4.) ABOLISH and/or tear to shreds C.A.F.T.A. (this is a double whammy because Mexico trades fairly significantly with the Central American Countries, as does the U.S.. In other words, in is in both countries best interests [as well as the Central American countries' interests themselves!!!!] to get out of C.A.F.T.A. (Central American Free-Trade Agreement)
(5.) ABOLISH and get the United States out of one of the most detestable, despicable, reprehensible, morally repugnant, deplorable entities/organizations on the Planet: The I.M.F. (International Monetary Fund)!!!!
(6.) ABOLISH and get the United States out of another one of the most detestable, despicable, reprehensible, morally repugnant, deplorable entities/organizations on the Planet: The W.B. (World Bank)!!!!
^JohnWroclow^,
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH (IN NAME AND IN ACTUALITY) YOUR STATEMENT . . .
"I do agree that if we end the war terror and the drug war, this problem goes away. I think we should concentrate on that instead of the 14th."
THANKS & PEACE, EVERYONE!!!!
VERY SINCERELY,
Emre N. Kazan (a.k.a. ^R_R_I_M_M_L_P_BATMAN^)
Natural rights aren't created by the government/nation you are from live/in. Just because some countries respect them more than others is immaterial.
T-Paine:
It happens to people in AZ all the time actually... but whatever... (along with DC and the 49 states besides AZ)
Paul Revered:
So the 14th isn't "truly ratified" then?
Okay listen people, re 14th due process and P&I clauses... they don't really give any power to the Federal government... they empower the individual w/ legal recourse against state governments in federal court if their natural rights have been violated...
Section 5 gives congress some power, but it would only be to undo anything the states did which violates the rights of the individual...
14th P&I is a CHECK & BALANCE on STATE POWER... you guys are so hung up in Federal abuse of power, you completely forget the states could just as easily abuse their power and need checks & balances too!
The 10th is a check on federal power by the states, and the 14th P&I is a check on local power by the feds! Don't you people get it!?
By bashing on the 14th P&I you're completely destroying a necessary check on state governments... one that if had not been gutted by SCOTUS in the slaughter-house cases would have provided legal recourse for segregation laws and the like... there would have been no need for the Civil Rights Act which damaged private property ownership... since black people could have sued the states in federal court with the 14th P&I... and the issue would have been moot... but since it couldn't be used because of other people like those who are supposedly "campaigning for liberty" who say it shouldn't be followed and repealed because it was "incorrectly ratified"... are being completely ridiculous and are harming the cause for liberty.
The 14th P&I + Due Process clauses ARE IMPORTANT CHECKS ON STATE POWER... just like the 10th is an important check on federal power... and because the 14th was ignored for so long... we ended up with the CRA which incorrectly loosened the commerce clause even further into giving the federal government unlimited power.... if the 14th had been intact there would have been NO REASON TO USE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE... the 14th does not usurp state power either, it only prevents the states from violating a citizen's natural rights! An overpowerful Commerce Clause is the only thing in danger of usurping state power.... seesh...
I still can't believe I have to convince people that some sort of check on state power is totally necessary considering how long Jim Crow and Segregation laws lasted... seriously... do you guys think we were better off with the 14th being ignored... SERIOUSLY?
@damagOr
"Natural rights aren't created by the government/nation you are from live/in. Just because some countries respect them more than others is immaterial."
Your arguement is flawed.
That means they are not natural rights. The country I live in does have them due to that the people did not fight for them in order to secure them from govt. So you agree that states/countries/people can decide on "rights". No one outside the US has a natural right to live in the US. You have to earn that right. There is a process for that. So follow the process. That was easy.
Rights in the US were not guaranteed or created by govt. There is no such thing as "natural rights" (see below for a list of "natural rights"). If the govt creates rights then they would have the power to take them away. That was not the idea behind the US system of govt. In the US govt the rights of government were determined by the people. Only the people were supposed to be able to change those rights and there was a specific system setup to change those rights. The all forgotten amendment process. Big difference.
Our rights were fought for and won against the English empire. If we had lost that battle we would live under their system. The ironic part is that we do now anyway. Thanks to the total disregard and understanding of why we have our rights. Our rights are not "natural rights". We would like to live in the world were everyone had those rights written in the Magna Carta, US constition, but we dont. Since they are not "natural rights". We fought for them.
Rights granted by govt/people by defintion can not be "natural rights."
In fact the only natural rights we have that I know of is the right to breathe, think, feel, and the right to die. Let me know if I am missing anything. All other rights are agreed up by either the people (republican - bottom up) or govt (democracy/govt mandate - top down).
I remember having a similar discussion with someone that said they had a natural right to abortion, and my answer to that was if that was true then you would have a flush button next to your belly button. You dont. So its a right you have to fight for and defend.
If the people of New Mexico decide that they want to manage their border they have that right. They did not initiate the act of violence, they are only protecting their rights to live peacefully. I am sure that if there was not a drug war and a border war, there would not be a problem. They are reacting to a situation where their rights are being taken away.
Solve the problem, dont dance around the problem with legal mumbo jumbo. I think the people of New Mexico are sick of the double talk coming out of DC.
Good for them.
You did realize I said... natural rights do NOT come from the government... is there anyone on here who actually thinks they are?
I'm saying however, certain natural rights are protected/guaranteed by the constitution when you add in the 14th P&I clause.
Mind you.. I don't like the fact they call them "privileges" or "immunities", I'd rather they called them natural rights in that clause... but the wording they used there still doesn't change the meaning... the P&I clause does protect the individual from abuses of his/her natural rights by the states/local governments.
As far as immigration goes, if natural rights aren't created by the government, then an immigrant or even a terrorist has just as much right to due process of law as anyone else.
The founders believed these natural rights were inherent to ALL human beings...
damagOr,
I would disagree that natural rights are inherent. It sounds nice and we can all dream, but reality is much different. I dont think the founders truely believed this as you say since they had slaves, and they did not free them even though there was much debate on the issue.
That battle has yet to be won. I dont see the US caring about the rights, natural or not, of many people around the world, or the world caring vice versa. For sure we are heading backwards at the moment in our evolution, but the US can not dictate to the world how to live when we dont get it right at home. They have get there on their own. Sort of like the Star Trek - Prime Directive - not to interfere with other cultures evolution.
I think the problem with the immigration law is that it now becomes a "crime". If you commit a crime you deserve due process. Citizenship is straight forward. You dont need a jury, etc. Its yes or no. You do not have a natural right to live in the US, just because you want to. You have to earn that right. Moving is not a natural right.
Being in the wrong place is not a crime. Its not an act of violence. Nice try, I undestand and appreciate why you want to live here, but sorry its not that simple just to jump the border. Just go back to where you belong. Idealistically I hate borders, but its not the world we live in. I can not live where I want. Even wild animals fight over territory. They are free. Its not a natural right to live wherever you want, but its not a crime where someone should be put in jail. Just go home. I know it sucks in Mexico, but fix Mexico then.
Terrorists should have due process. They are charged with a crime or an act of violence. I mean really we are heading in the wrong direction.
The founders backed away from the radical natural law theory in the first two paragraphs of the Declaration. They produced a document which seemed to embrace natural law but which denied its power.
If we are playing by Progressive rules we will be burned by progressive fire. We have got to get back to basics but yes we have to close our borders because we can't provide for the world-at least not until we fix the hole in the boat we are on that is sinking! All of these problems we are arguing is simply part of the means that justified this end. We have become an immoral country in a lot of ways and if we don't turn back to God the Constitution is of no help! How can we be so compassionate to worry about those who want in and not help our own Americans that are suffering? Child torture, rape and Po-nography is an everyday event for American children, are they not our future, the future of this country? Where is their freedom? Yet we keep bickering over any foreign who wants a taste of our brilliant freedom. Where is our conscience, where are our priorities. Are the cost of your veggies that important?? Common Sense, priorities and humble faith can fix what law cannot..........If we don't come together as a people and a nation "under God" we will fail...........Priorities not Politics
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
