No. You allow the horse in someone’s house without their permission.
No. You allow the horse in someone’s house without their permission.
We are not talking about you and your cousin. We are talking about millions of aliens invading our borders. Stop being obtuse and disingenuous.
By “negative rights” I take it to mean rights which cannot be usurped by a government. “Negative rights” and “Natural Law” are abstract concepts in themselves, open to a myriad of interpretations. To be truthful, these concepts only have meaning to me when they are given a concrete, real world definition. The Bill of Rights is the concrete, real world definition codified by the authors of the Constitution. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” roll off the tongue nicely but they are closer to political rhetoric than an objective, real world definition. The Bill of Rights could have been succinctly phrased as:
“The right of all people to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness shall not be infringed.”
IT DOESN’T SAY THAT. Libertarian-Anarchists might stand up and cheer but it would be completely unworkable and would lead to utter chaos: Death penalty abolished. Possession of WMD a protected right. Taxation, forget about it. Drug laws abolished. ALL laws infringe on somebody’s right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness in some way or another. They frequently do pick winners and losers. That is why we have many “speed bumps” and constraints on the legislative process. Ideally a reasonable balance in the conflicting rights of different groups is reached. The process is not perfect, the Constitution is not perfect, it has potential for unintended consequences and loopholes.
Natural Law be damned, it has nothing to do with people outside the United States. They are free to form their own interpretation, their own constitutions, their own governments and their own laws. For “We the People of the United States” I take it to mean the Bill of Rights. Our Constitution allows our Congress to regulate our borders and our trade with the outside world. If you don’t like it, work to amend it but don’t throw out subjective philosophical concepts like Natural Law and expect anyone to take it as a legitimate argument which settles the matter.
I made a huge mistake in posting that. SORRY!
Old dog, what does @Alaska_Slim mean at the top of your post?
Including the @username in a post sends a notification to that user to bring the post to their attention. I was making a general reply to Slim, not to any specific post that he has made.
You and I both know that what you’re talking about is jobs.
You’re pretending jobs are some sort of intrinsic right people have, but that’s false.
Who gets a job is a dictation of liberty, of my choosing who I associate with and who I make contracts with.
The Government has no useful role in determining this. People have the intrinsic right to associate & work with who they choose, to include people from other nations.
Liberty is what makes it so.
Government doing stupid things with its own resources, does not make the right fail to exist. Anymore than if the Government subsidized guns (in some fashion similar to Switzerland), that it could then dictate, or even limit the supply of guns.
Subsidies, do not destroy rights.
Then you’re saying rights are a creature of Government, not of Nature or God.
Be honest about this Dave, because it’s what you’re saying. You’re saying that natural rights don’t exist, that what exists are only Civil rights created by a social agreement, managed by the Government.
Here’s the best explanation of Positive and Negative rights I can offer:
Old Dog this is how our own legal system actually determines rights, it’s not simply a philosophical exercise. The boundary between Positive vs Negative was of great relevance in the Obamacare debacle, especially when it came to the rules requiring coverage of contraceptives.
Amendment 9; the list of rights goes greatly beyond what is actually mentioned.
As I’ve stated before, Alexander Hamilton himself didn’t want an explicit list of rights, because he was afraid the Government/courts would assume that the list would be the only rights people have. Hence why Amendment 9 was formulated, to dissuade that fear. An acknowledgement that other rights implicitly exist.
Heck, the very language of the Constitution acknowledges this, because it’s mostly a list not of Federal powers, but a list of Prohibitions of what the Government may not do.
Ergo; rights are not created by the document, rather, they are acknowledged by the writers of the document to pre-exist. Natural Law theory, is right there in the verbiage.
What you are missing and attempting to deflect from is the subject of the thread which is lawless officials in sanctuary cities who are giving aid and comfort to those who are invading America’s borders.
Are you saying Congress is not charged with protecting our borders from invasions?
Are you saying government officials are not breaking a law prohibiting the harboring of those who have invaded our borders.
Instead of ignoring the subject of the thread and filling the thread with your long winded posts having nothing to do with the subject under discussion, try controlling yourself and stick to the subject matter.
No, I’ve already addressed this TWICE, you’re just not answering it John.
The Federal Government has no right to punish local officials, who are following the mandate of their own voters.
Localities ignore Federal laws all the damn time, when it comes to drug laws, to media piracy laws, to environmental laws, and yet more.
Federalism allows states & cities that prudential judgement. Immigration law is not an exception here, it happens all the time.
Unless you’re saying we should punish local officials for ignoring those other laws too, you’re making an argument you don’t mean.
That is not what our Constitution declares is crystal clear language ___ a constitution which was approved by the States and people therein.
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 notwith-standing.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Are you suggesting our federal law prohibiting the harboring of millions of illegal entrants who have invaded the borders of the United States is not a law made in pursuance of our Constitution?
Ammendment 9; yes it does.
John; do we Punish officials for ignoring Federal Drug laws?
Federal Environmental laws?
Federal Media Piracy Laws?
You may not hold immigration law in isolation from the rest of Federal Law, it’s either everything or your argument is wrong.
Decide which it is.
It’s not very clever of you to edit my post and then respond to something out of context, and then not answer my question to you.
What I wrote was:
The 9th amendment, and some others, do not apply to illegal immigrants:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by THE PEOPLE.
In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez in 1990 , the Court said that “the people” refers to those “persons
who are part of a national community ,” or who have “substantial connections” to the United States.
This was reaffirmed by District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and said that “the people” "refers to all
members of the political community .”
The remainder of your post is an irrelevant distraction from the question at hand.
All aliens have rights, you may not put them through a bureaucratic nightmare, and strip them of the ability to come here.
There are only illegals in the first place, because the system made it impossible for innocent people to come here.
The 1st wrong, was Government, violating natural law, by putting that system into place.
The Constitution does not grant that power. You can regulate, not block.
Stop, read this:
" National community" thus includes immigrants.
Old Dog, you only make your standpoint relevant, by subscribing to a Living Constitution theory. Which conservatives reject. You’ve invented your own interpretation of the Constiution, and you didn’t even realize you were doing it.
Nothing else fits; the plain meaning of the text in the Constitution, as it would have meant in the 18th century, clearly disagrees with you.
More BS, AS. Yes, some illegals are taking jobs that Americans can and are willing to do, but more than that, illegals, in general, steal social security numbers and other forms of identity, they take the lives of American citizens that WOULD NOT BE LOST IF THE ILLEGAL WASN’T HERE! They cause other forms of mayhem that wouldn’t occur if they’d simply stayed home where they belong–rapes, including child rapes, murders, robberies, wide variety of petty crimes and serious felonies that Americans would not fall victim to IF they’d stayed where they belong. Liberals USED to say that if one life is lost to gun violence, that’s too much. What changed your mind about illegals–who HAVE killed Americans. It’s infinitely more than just Kate Steinley.
Try to be BIT less obtuse, AS. I’m saying no such thing. I’m saying that no foreigner has a “natural right” to come to the U.S. just because he/she wants to. Immigrating to the U.S. is NOT anyone’s “right”…natural or otherwise…without the PERMISSION of American citizens.
Try to follow, AS. There is NO SUCH THING as a “natural right” to immigrate to the U.S. PERIOD.
And some rights DO come from government…such as the “right” to immigrate to the U.S.–or to Mexico, Australia, China, Japan or Zimbabwe or any other nation on the planet.
Please re-read my post. I said NOTHING about immigrants. I referred only to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. So you post a long irrelevant reply having nothing to do with the question at hand. The Supreme Court has ruled (twice) and you think it it is contrary to Alaska Slim’s version of Natural Law, whatever that is. You don’t like it, I get that, but until it is reversed, it is the law of the land:
WHEN THE CONSTITUTION REFERS TO “THE PEOPLE” IT DOES NOT INCLUDE TOURISTS, DIPLOMATS OR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
PS I would be interested in what you believe Natural Law is. I assume that it is something more than a phrase you throw out when you are out of ammo.
PPS After this post I will no longer use the phrase “illegal immigrants” since you have a problem parsing it. I will always try to characterize that group as “illegal aliens”. Hope that will help.
PLEASE. Half of illegal immigrants came here in the legal system.
The system, that sends them a notice 1 year out from their visa expiring, saying “Hey, get yourself renewed”.
The immigrant complies, sends in their background history, their list of addresses going back ten years, the money to pay for the renewal, and a whole stack of forms of other information.
Then wait 6 months to hear back “oh, there was a mistake, please fix such and such”.
They fix the document as requested, send it back it in, wait 8 more months.
“oh there was one other thing. BTW, you haven’t been renewed yet, so you’re outside the country now right?”
And hey, that’s for people already here, what about the idiocy of people who get put into waiting lists that extend over a quarter of a century? People who’ve had to come recurringly on a temporary visa, only to be rejected for permanent residency, or were left in limbo with no idea of where or when or if they would get in, for a generation or more?
This is respecting Immigrants? THIS is affirming the protections and advancements of the Constitution they are owed?
THIS is your America? The STUPID version of 1984? The even lazier version of the gotdang VA?
Because it sure as hell doesn’t sound like the Founders version. Railroading people into unlawfulness, with bureaucratic bull****.
Nope, it affirmed it.
What I just gave you is your own source, you didn’t read it, what I quoted there above, is what you ignored.
The Supreme Court decision is against you, it affirms that aliens have rights under the Constitution equal to that of citizens.
What’s lacking, is Governmental follow-through. And it’s wrong for doing so on a moral level, on a practical level, on a sociological level, and philosophical level, all at once.
You keep trying to justify it, but the Constitution refuses to agree. Natural Law, does not define itself along the lines of citizenship. It never did, and it never will.
You’re invoking ideas external of the Constitution to dictate what you want it to say. You do that, because you never studied the Constitution on its own terms.