Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread


You’re talking about a process by which you overturn the policy; It doesn’t change that the State is wrong, and that I have the right to express my faith publicly.

Our country was explicitly founded on the moral ethic of English Common law, and nothing in Common Law, would give either the State, or an individual, the right to interfere with me.

Common Law > Civil Law. Natural Rights > Civil Law. The Founders understood this, and explicitly built our country with that understanding as its bedrock.


And yet, you post here with your bare face hanging out that people have an unrestricted “right” to sneak into the country, merely because they WANT to.


They have a right to come here. “Sneaking”, instead of legal entry, is a result of the Government brokering power to the Unions and their lawyers

I’ve said it before, you can either have legal immigration, or a black market.

Just like you can have legal gun ownership, or illegal guns everywhere.

Guns are easier to control than people.


You spend a lot of time and energy here complaining about the bad policy, and telling everyone who disagrees with erasing our borders how wrong we are, so am I now to understand that changing that bad policy is not what you desire? Because the way that reads, what you really want is a free pass to break the law for fun and profit… You want unregulated labor to gain a competitive advantage over heavily regulated labor. Do I have an automatic right to work as an electrician (something I have significant skill at, btw) without gaining the bureaucratically required licences, certifications and permits, or will I be jailed and/or fined for that? I can work cheaper than the guys who go through all the state mandated rigamarole, after all…


True, qix. Several years ago, some Texas Senator didn’t like the fact that he was compelled to sell an easement for a pipeline at a price that some appointed commissioners determined was a “fair market price.” He didn’t try to change the law, but he DID get a bill passed that “punished” the pipeline company’s acquisition reps by requiring them to provide an application to and “license” from the State Real Estate Board before they could even CONTACT landowners in the future. Then the State Real Estate Board started tacking on a variety of “requirements” for licensure which tends to limit who can perform work for any company desiring to acquire land-use rights in Texas such as easements or leased land for cell towers, etc. I fully expect them to sooner or later require a law degree before one can do those things in Texas, which is utter stupidity.


Seriously? I think it absolutely can be moral and right to break laws. What about when missionaries work in nations where their religion and proselytizing is illegal? I can think of many scenarios where disobeying the law is absolutely the correct and right course of action.

Oh, you mean it’s never right to disobey a U.S. law. So the only correct way to deal with a bad U.S. law is to change it even if you can’t. Then it it is your contention that photographers must photograph gay weddings against their will – at least until they can change the law. The fines against photographers, florists and bakers are appropriate because it is never right to break the law. Got it.

Don’t forget property rights over other human beings was enshrined in the law in this country. So you believe it was appropriate to enforce them.

And if you were the guy to enforce property rights over another human being, you would be wrong. The law does not justify your participation in immoral and evil deeds.

My contention is that you are just as evil as a bad law if you enforce a bad law. It is wrong to enforce bad laws.

The rights listed in the Constitution are all negative rights. It’s a descriptive term.

The Sixth Amendment absolutely does:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

You don’t have to be a constitutional scholar to understand the plain black and white meaning of the Sixth Amendment. If you construe this any other way, then the left is well within its bounds to complete misrepresent the Second Amendment.

You have an actual right to counsel.

I cannot believe this is even in contention at all – regardless of the illegal alien argument.


BS. The sixth Amendment says a defendant CAN have the assistance of an attorney. It does NOT say that he MUST, nor that one must be provided FOR him if he can’t afford one himself and at the expense of taxpayers. Nobody here is staying that you don’t have a “right” to disobey a bad law. What we’re saying is that if you do, you need to be prepared to accept the consequences for doing so…certainly until the law has been changed, and we have a pretty good track record of changing bad laws, even if not a PERFECT record.


Literally what I said was that it’s bad to enforce bad laws. If you’re a cop and you enforce a bad law, you’re bad.

And it’s not “can,” it’s you have a right to counsel. That’s what it says. Most of us cannot afford an attorney to access the legal system, which is inflicted upon us by the state out of necessity. The poor have as much right to counsel to defend themselves in court as someone who can afford it. It’s a right. It’s literally listed in the Constitution. And you say it’s not. We might not give two rips about someone who’s guilty, but convicting an innocent for lack of counsel would be an absolutely appalling travesty of justice.


You know as well as I do that overegulation of guns leads to widespread illegal gun ownership.

The cause in immigration is the same; there are dispersed, ubiquitous human factors at play for why people will continue to do things, even when you make them illegal.

Even when you restrict supply, the demand doesn’t go away.

It’s perfectly fine for the government to vet people, but if it suppresses supply below natural demand, it’s asking for a black market to arise.

And as I said before, guns are easier to control, than people. That’s the reality we live in, and policy should be written with this in mind.

Which shows the true nature of the issue; Illegal immigrant labor became ubiquitous in California, because only those immigrants could serve a whole list of niche demands cost effectively.

By making labor too costly, the State created a demand for things outside legal channels.

Detroit has the same problem, it’s just most of it isn’t done by illegal immigrants. Just garden variety charlatans, and even good people, who simply couldn’t keep pace with the compliance.


You didn’t answer the question: do you actually want to change the law, or or do you just want to evade it for a competitive advantage while paying lip service to the fundamental inequities of it?


I’ve only mentioned Barry Goldwater a 1,000 times. What do you think he wanted?


That’s another evasive non answer. You ain’t Barry Goldwater, are you? Do you want immigration reform, or do you want to benefit from exploiting labor that isn’t subject to the same rules?


We don’t have a Bracero-like program today, so it isn’t. Getting that program would require reform.


The laws are always “legal” until proved otherwise but almost all laws are immoral whether they are legal or not.

So it is always “legal” to enforce the law but it is rarely “right” to enforce the law.

Laws are passed by the most immoral and corrupt people in society (legislatures); the idea that the literal MILLIONS of laws that now govern the citizens of the United States are “appropriate” is ridiculous.

So that means the law has no authority to determine right and wrong, in the illegal immigration debate that means that the Left have to defend the idea that everyone in the world has a Right to my property (except me) and everyone in the United States is bound by unjust laws except those who enter illegally; they are given immunity from our laws.

AS believes these things and wants the political security that comes with a large dependent class so he supports ignoring immigration laws; there is nothing “Moral” or “Just” at the root.

I support the aspect of “breaking the law” because the more laws are broken the less credibility the judicial system will have; we might get a swamp draining some day if everyone replaced their “reverence” for “the law” with open mockery; but the judicial system as it stands now is corrupt from the Meter Maid to the Supreme Court.

We have unchecked judicial tyranny right now, the guilty are honored and the innocent are despised.


No, you’ll have to quit lying about me.

This is my position:

Go ahead RET; try to say again that I don’t “understand” him. I dare you.


Are you Gregory Hines? Maybe Arthur Duncan?


Why would I care what anyone you “link” has to say, I have judged you based on YOUR arguments and YOUR inability or unwillingness to address the refutations to YOUR arguments.

Would Napolitano also refuse to address the facts? I don’t know because I have never debated him, but I do not argue with people via proxy especially when the proxy pollutes the context of the entire debate whenever their position is rendered indefensible.

If you were in charge you would allow unlimited importation of Welfare recipients starting today, the results of your action would be an insurmountable majority for the Extreme Left and the destruction of a Market based wage structure everywhere like has occurred in California.


I have no doubt that’s exactly what he wants to do. He keeps basically saying as much.

So why can’t you just say, “Yes”?


Pretty sure we’re reading the same posts, and when I read it it says he just wants cheap labor that’s exempt from the same rules the rest of have to follow.


Cut the crap; you said I didn’t understand him. You fed me that BS, as I said, the same as he has here, that immigration is a natural right.

There’s no ambiguity here; just your idiocy at pretending words, don’t mean what they mean.

Apparently you thought natural law tradition had nothing to say on immigration, when nope, you’re wrong.