Bill to punish lawless officials in sanctuary cities with fines and jail time


#201

So what? Most PEOPLE are not violent criminals either.


#202

What part of “rank and file officers” don’t you understand? The two quoted “officials” in your posted article are (1) a sheriff elected in a decidedly far-left region of Texas and (2) an Assistant Chief of Houston who is not only beholden to a far-left mayor and electorate, but himself of Hispanic descent who cannot afford to antagonize the large Hispanic demography IN Houston.


#203

Again, tell this to the other domains of Federal law local authorities ignore as it is.

You want to hold immigration law up as a lone exception, but it isn’t one. It’s following a pattern we’ve already had elsewhere.

It doesn’t; there was no Federal jurisdiction over Immigration until the 1880s, and even when the relevant court cases established it, there was no mention of an explicit power listed in the Constitution giving it.

It was stated directly to be an implicit power; un-numerated.

My issue, is that Natural law does not allow Congress to arbitrarily block innocent people from coming here. Aliens have natural rights, and if they don’t present a threat, those right must be affirmed, just the same as anyone else’s.

Otherwise, you are saying rights stem from Government, rather than nature or God.


#204

Cool.
And how many of these jobs are being performed by people with IQs below 90?

Because there is nothing in economic theory to deal with the consequence of someone not being smart enough to fill any job for which there is demand.

5th time’s the charm?

How will people with sub-90 IQs continue to find new work, when nearly every new job type you list, requires a triple digit IQ at a minimum.


#205

You ignored the second part of that:

Jobs are expanding; even among professions people with low IQs can handle.

It’s the perspective you’re looking through that’s misleading you; you see jobs being lost or taken, you don’t see the ones being created, because things going right doesn’t garner nearly as much attention, and because the economy is distributing those jobs among a wider field of types, rather than a single ubiquitous one you can easily point to.

In short, it’s the spotlight fallacy. The same thing that makes people think gun violence is going up, when it’s been falling for decades, and ignoring instances where guns make violence fall.

The adjustment from the agricultural age to the industrial age, was a far harder, far harsher step, then what we’re experiencing now (industrial to information).

People with 90 IQs would have had an easier time being a line sythe & hand harvester, than an operator of any sort of machine that automated the process. And yet we adjusted.

Because technology creates a demand for other low-skilled work. There’s always other cognition & labor we need to allocate (because we’re always making new demands), at a price point that makes automation too cost prohibitive or too impractical. Just like with Airline baggage.


#206

Are you suggesting a geographical area under natural law may not be claimed and then occupied and controlled by those who have laid claim to it? Are you really suggesting the people who have laid claim to a geographical area may not form a governing body and set rules over the geographical area claimed?

Are you really suggesting natural law does not allow you to arbitrarily block innocent people from entering upon the geographical area you call your home?

:roll_eyes:


#207

There is no natural law that entitles one man to take another mans property without compensation.
There is no natural law that prohibits any man or group of men from deciding who can access their property and who cannot.
There is no natural law that says one man must subsidize his own competition in the labor market.

Any appeal to natural law that claims the former is BS of the highest order, no different than those who try to claim that Christianity demands Communism.

Citizenship is a National membership, no single State can impose on all the others this membership and the responsibilities that accompany it unilaterally; the idea that the few can rule the rest with an iron fist and a big SCREW YOU IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT! is a pattern embraced only by the extreme left.


#208

When a farmer points his gun at a border agent, saying “get the hell off my land”, whose rights are being violated?
(and yes, this has happened)

Property rights exist at the individual level, and it is individual employers and landowners, whom are deciding to hire these people.

It is also individual land owners, on the border, whom are resisting Government confiscation of land to build the fence.

We can palpably prove that Government has abused property owners through eminent domain on this point btw.

Point is RET, you’re speaking for a collective, when its individuals whom are at play, and who natural rights actually apply to.

Citizenship cannot be the harbinger of Natural Rights.

If you make that equivocation, you are implicitly saying rights divine from Government, because citizenship is a creature of Government.

Natural rights by their very definition mean everyone has them because of their humanity. Because human beings have an implicit dignity about them called sovereignty. If you deny this, then what you affirm are not Natural rights. What you uphold is, at best, civil rights, created by social contract.

Which means Government officials can write & rewrite them in any manner they choose.


#209

The rules have to follow Natural law. Civil Law cannot be whatever it wants.

The Collective you speak for John, may not write rules that violate individual sovereignty. You must first prove each individual guilty of something in a court of law to do that.

Which means you cannot write laws that unilaterally strip people of natural rights. Such laws are unjust.

If the Collective cannot write rules stripping people of the right to own & bear arms, it equally cannot tell innocent (non-contagious) people coming from other places that they may not come here & work. (and work for people who want them here on their land.)

You can regulate these things, but you may not block these things. An opaque bureaucratic system that intentionally works as a blockage of immigration of innocent people, is a violator of natural law.


#210

That is PRECISELY what AS has been claiming all along in this debate…that you or I CANNOT, with legitimacy, prevent someone from squatting on our property without invitation because “natural law” allows them to do so. It ultimately is a moronic position for anyone to assume.


#211

Wrong;

In this situation; the government is violating someone’s property, not the immigrant.

Natural rights exist on the individual level, not the collective.

You can chase anyone off from your own property, but you cannot tell someone else who they can have stay (voluntarily) on theirs.

That’s your mix up here Dave.


#212

Nice deflection, but you digress!


#213

Only in your absurd and uninformed world. If you don’t believe me, try breaking into a home in Florida while an armed citizens is home.

JWK


#214

So as a NATION we are prohibited from protecting the country in the same fashion that individuals protect their own homes?


#215

John, You don’t get to come to my home, to grab people in my house, who I’am allowing to stay there, just because they’re there.

By natural law, you don’t have that authority. I’am allowed to invite whomever I want onto my property, and you need to butt out. That’s the issue.

No Collective, which is what you are representing, gets to tell me or anyone else “no” on that.

You already admitted this.


#216

You don’t get to come to MY home, and take people off MY property, just because they’re there.

My property right is the one at stake. Not yours, not anyone else who doesn’t want the immigrant on theirs. You can throw out anyone you want.

But immigrants are in most cases on the property of people who want them there. You don’t get to tell those property owners “no”.

The owners set the rules of who stays & goes on their property, because it’s their property, not yours.

That’s their natural right. No Collective gets to overrule that, anymore than the Collective can deny them ownership of their firearms.


#217

BS, AS. In order to get to “your property” they had to cross MINE…or someone else’s. If they STAY on your property, at YOUR expense exclusively, nobody will object, but it doesn’t work that way and you know it!


#218

DEBUNKED; there are plenty of places on the border who have no qualms at all of immigrants passing through there. Many are towns who rely on that foot traffic for their very existence.

Hence why such towns have sued the Federal Government when it tries to take their property:

But hey, if you have an illegal immigrant on your property, chase them off, that’s your right!

But if the illegal arrives on someone else’s property, someone who wants them there. You have no right to remove them.

That’s my argument Dave, NEVER tell me again that it’s some BS of saying people can’t chase off trespassers on their own land.

People are free to do that; including when it’s a border agent they don’t want there.


#219

So if a burglar manages to escape from the property he’s burglarized, whoever owns the property he’s hiding out in is correct to run the police off and refuse to give the burglar up? Good luck making THAT claim in any court in the country. These people are CRIMINALS…by definition…and NOBODY…including local mayors or governors…has the legal authority to PREVENT their apprehension by legitimate authorities.


#220

What does that have to do with the price of cheese? I’ve been to Brownsville, Texas, and the foot traffic is mostly Americans walking across the bridge into Matamoros looking for a few bargains, not illegals walking across into the U.S. looking for work.