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


#221

Typical Leftist defense of draconian government force, as long as a single citizen does not object to the presence of a person who is here illegally, every citizen in every State is obligated to pay for that illegals support (and crimes); the Tyranny of the minority at the expense of the rightful citizens.

If you decide to provide safe haven in your home to a wanted pedophile are they also protected by natural law?

How about a “farmer” with a gun who wants to protect a murderer who is invited onto his property?

Are Terrorists also exempt from the law if they can find a legal citizen property owner to house them?

There is no natural right to encroach on any nations soil without the consent of that nations duly elected government.

That does not change just because some farmers decided they wanted slaves who would be paid from the public treasury.


#222

Spare me, you can do whatever the hell you want with a burglar, you just moved the damn goalposts.

Either stick to trespassing (and again, chase them off, no damn problem), or quit pretending its immigration you’re even talking about.

Dave I can point out criminals you would side with over the law. When the law is Unjust, it ain’t worth the damn paper it’s printed on.

You blame the boneheads who wrote it, you blame the bureaucrats who micromanage people, you blame a system that incrementally destroys liberty.

And you do that, before you do a damn thing, about defending an attempt to criminalize natural human behavior that has been going on since the 1890s. Before any law you want to cite was ever written.

The law had a duty not to antagonize people, not to intrude, not to violate liberty, AND IT SCREWED THE **** UP.


#223

There is no Government power under our system that allows it to write immigration laws in whatever way it wants. There is a requirement it must follow when writing that law.

Immigration law, has to be compatible with natural law, it has to treat immigrants as human beings with the negative rights on par with Americans themselves.

James Madison himself affirmed that aliens have such rights under the Constitution. You cannot treat them in any manner you wish, there is a duty to treat them as sovereign beings.

If a given law fails to do that, then the law is unjust, which makes it no different than a law banning guns.

Pointless, and destructive. Absolutely corrosive to liberty itself.


#224

No human rights are violated by passing and enforceing laws regarding the legal criteria for migrating here.

There are however MANY rights violated when citizens are forced at gunpoint to subsidize their illegal immigrant competition in the labor market, not to mention the countless other laws that illegals are given a pass to while citizens are not.

But you and all of the other open border/permanent Leftist majority proponents never seem to give a crap about “natural law” when you are pointing your government guns in our faces to buy your votes.

Funny how laws and rights only matter to you when they are used to force the citizens to buy you an electoral majority of dependent slaves.


#225

In your world there are no goalposts. Do you decide who enters onto your property? The fact is, the American People have a collective right to determine who enters upon their property called the United States of America.

Give it a break and stop being obtuse!

JWK


#226

Collectives do not overrule Natural Rights, to include property rights.

Unless you are saying the collective can write laws denying ownership of guns, unilaterally, with no due process, pointing to the Collective is futile here.

Natural Rights at the individual level go before the Collective, for our own good. Because Collectives are stupidly shortsighted, most of the time, and trample all over liberty.


#227

As I correctly pointed out, in your world there are no goalposts. In my world we have a written Constitution which establishes goalposts and legitimate functions of our federal government, one of which is to “repel invasions”. Try reading our Constitution someday.

JWK


#228

James Madison stated that aliens have protections equal to that of Americans within the Constitution.

He stated this. Ergo, no system we have may treat them as chattel. There is a bare minimum of respect an immigration system must adhere to when managing immigrants.

Treat them like people with negative rights. The Government and its immigration system cannot treat immigrants in any manner it wishes. The Constitution does not give it any other choice.

Natural Law, as defined by John Locke, which the Constitution was built upon, does not give it any other choice.


#229

AS,

What on earth does that have to do with what I posted? I wrote:

In my world we have a written Constitution which establishes goalposts and legitimate functions of our federal government, one of which is to “repel invasions”. Try reading our Constitution someday.

JWK


#230

“protections” simply means they have access to due process while here, Madison did not live in a time where “protections” meant using government force to take the property of citizens and give it to criminals who are not citizens and live above all of the laws that citizens are forced to adhere to.

You quite simply have no Right (natural or otherwise) to force United States Citizens to subsidize your labor needs at gunpoint.

Nothing has really changed since before the Civil War, the Left still want their slaves and they still are willing to use force to keep them.


#231

This is utter nonsense. The Constitution explicitly forbade the Congress from limiting immigration until 1808 leaving it to the several states. If this doesn’t imply that AFTER 1808 they regained sole and absolute control I don’t know what would suffice for your ideas.

You constantly talk about rights and “natural law”. Don’t forget this:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect THEIR Safety and Happiness.

THEIR rights, THEIR Safety, THEIR Happiness. THEY would be “We, the People of the United States” Not the rights, safety and happiness of every being on the planet.


#232

IMMIGRANTS, AS. NOT illegal invaders. There is NO SUCH THING as a “natural right” to go wherever you want on the planet and take whatever you want from the inhabitants therein. That’s simply stupid. There’s no other word for it.


#233

Old Dog, I’ve already answered this You didn’t reply before. Here’s the fullest answer I’ve given on this:

None of the court rulings that established Federal Power over immigration in the 1880s, uses the argument you are making here.

They simply state that the power is implied. Not enumerated.

One problem Old Dog: “The People” refer to more than Citizens. it includes denizens, freeblacks, Indians, and Aliens.

The Constitution makes a clear distinction with “people”, “persons” , and “citizens” , it does not treat these words in the equal regard you are making:

http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm

https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvc.htm

https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvcright.htm

Textualism. Remember this word Old Dog? It is the school of thought on the Constitution, that interprets the words within the document, as they would have meant at the time it was written.

And it’s from that perspective, that Judge Napolitano speaks from. As a Textualist, he states that Aliens have rights under the Constitution.

“Persons” and “People” as defined by 18th century legal usage of those words does not align with what you claim the Constitution states.

Case in point, we have other laws from the period, other documents using these definitions in the manner I’ve described here.

Laws such as:


#234

We didn’t have “illegals” in the 18th century, because the system didn’t try to block people from coming here.

There is a bare minimum requirement for how our system can treat innocent people trying to migrate to here. They are not chattel, they are not “optional”, they have a right to come here, and the system cannot be a obstacle to that.

You can regulate them, but you cannot block innocent people. Natural Rights, by their very definition, either apply to everyone or they don’t exist.


#235

NONE of these invaders are “innocent”. They all KNOW that what they are doing is against the law and they do it anyway…INTENTIONALLY defying the laws of the United States. Again, there simply IS NO SUCH THING AS A NATURAL LAW that allows anyone to go wherever they please and confiscate the property of those who live there legally.


#236

You put the cart before the horse.

You can’t write laws banning their entry to start with. You made the 1st error, the 1st wrong, by making the immigration system what it is, and trying to limit the number of people who come here.

You cannot do this Dave. Being the “1.2 millionth person” to immigrate here in a given year is not a crime, but you allow the system to criminalize it. That is wrong.

Nothing in Natural law, nothing in John Locke’s 2nd Treatise, permits a system to operate like that.

It’s because you (try to) limit the number, that we have illegals at all.


#237

That’s A STUPID concept, AS. Try again. For the third time, THERE IS NO “NATURAL LAW” that permits one to go anywhere on the planet one wants to go and take from the inhabitants there whatever you wish. Such a “natural law” simply doesn’t exist. The number of sovereign nations is INCREASING…not decreasing. There’s a REASON that’s happening and it’s not because everyone wants “open borders.”


#238

Wage Slavery, the claim you’re making of low-skilled immigraiton here, is a Marxist criticism of Capitalism RET.

If the labor isn’t involuntary, if the people are compensated for their labor, and are free to leave at any time, they aren’t slaves.

Not by the definition of anyone who isn’t a Marxist.

Marx himself HATED immigration. He saw it in the same light you are here. Punishing to the proletariat.


#239

They aren’t “taking” anything; that’s you moving the goalposts again.

You cannot block me from bringing my Italian cousin here to work for me. I have the right to do that, he has the right to be here.

That is Natural Law at work.

Natural law is an appeal to humanity, to being members of God’s creation, and thus, having intrinsic dignity in the form of Individual sovereignty.

Natural Rights only exist if everyone has them. Otherwise Dave, you are saying Rights come from Government.

You need to decide which trench you occupy.


#240

BS. Are you trying to tell us that no illegal takes anything from American citizens without their permission?

I don’t SEEK to block you from inviting your cousin to work…but NEITHER of you have a “natural right” for him to come to the U.S. or for you to hire him if he does. He may come and work for you IF he meets the criteria established by the government–including your assurance that he won’t become a burden on the taxpayer, but NOT if he’s a known criminal, a terrorist or a carrier of some virulent disease.