Easy and good trade war must be working out -- Good job, guys!


Hence why we had open border for 110 years?

We had no border patrol, no visa, no immigration policy.

Do you care enough to explain?


Yet, no immigration policy, and we had open borders.

Strange, I’m not seeing you deny this, so it’s like… you’re avoiding the issue?


Yes, we had “borders”; I wonder why?
Then we found that we needed more than a defense against a marching army so we addressed a new threat at our defined BORDER which was unchecked immigration.

There were no laws about pointing lasers at airplanes for most of our history so I guess those laws are now illegitimate as well; thank goodness your reasoning can stand up to examination!


Yet, no immigration policy; why RET? ( I did ask first)

And why did Madison say Aliens had equal rights under the Constitution?

Why would he say this?


And I answered. you just like to pretend that answers you can’t argue with were never offered.

We also never had laws against dumping nuclear waste for most of our history, like laser pointing I suppose those are also illegitimate.


Please remember to quote the Constitution when you are “proving your point” since your “Point” is that our actual Laws are based only and completely upon Natural Law with no edits or alterations of any kind and no other influences.


“Edits and Alterations” without an amendment is Living Constitution theory RET. If it wasn’t in an amendment, then you’re changing the Constitutions by adding in something that wasn’t there before.

My point is that recognition of Natural Law was there from the start. You have to not treat the Constitution as a dead letter to read in an immigration power.

That’s why I can find Conservatives quoting an argument like mine. They go back to asking what the Constitution based itself upon.

And you can’t deny this.


We also didn’t have fishing and hunting “licenses” issued by government, we could do with our own property what WE wanted to do without government interference, we could collect rainwater for our own use without violating some “law,” and we could grow our own food without violating some stupid “zoning” regulation. What’s your point?


He’s done his part, I do believe…


Congressional control over immigration was not a feature of the U.S, Constitution.

Fishing and hunting “licenses” are a State-run affairs, and they always had the right to implement them.

They (the States) also had the right to regulate immigration if they so chose.

But the Federal Government did not.

The fact that we added in those Federal powers, without a matching amendment to the Constitution spelling them out, means we’ve used a “Living Constitution” to create those things.

Ergo, something RET says he doesn’t approve of, is something his desire to control immigration relies upon.

I can find Conservatives who speak out against what we do in immigration, because what we do goes against an originalist or textual interpretation of the Constitution.

For my part, I’m saying that it’s perfectly alright if we have a immigration system (unlike in the Founding Era), so long as it doesn’t violate the basic rights immigrants are entitled to.

Which basically means, you may reject them only if they’re culpable of something, and you may not subject them to bureaucratic nightmares that none of us here would stand for in our own lives.

True respect of liberty requires altruism, and the current system lacks it.


So in YOUR nonsense world, AS, anyone anywhere on the planet (or, presumably, OFF the planet) who wishes to come to the United States is somehow “entitled” to do so and we, who own ALL of the land within our boundaries, can’t prevent it as long as we can’t prove that they are a criminal or coming here with nefarious intent? That’s about as STUPID an idea as I’ve ever seen posted here.


Yes if they’re not culpable, not sick, then you have neither a moral, nor economic reason to object.

You don’t have to invite them onto your own private land, but if someone else here wants to? That’s fair game.

If Andrew Napolitano wants to bring over his cousin from Sicily, or even a complete stranger, he has the right do that.


No he doesn’t. At least not PERMANENTLY.


Yes he does. Again, on what grounds could you possibly object? If you can’t show that the person is a threat, you’re kind of lacking cause.


I can object on the basis that one must apply for an immigration visa and jump through a bunch of hoops to come here LEGALLY and eventually become a citizen and Judge Nap doesn’t have the legal authority to shortcut that process.


That doesn’t preclude that people are entitled to come here.

A process to manage this is fine; you just can’t disavow people who aren’t culpable or sick.

As many who wants it should able to apply, and be approved. There’s no reason to say “no”.

That’s not needed; people can live here as a permanent resident indefinitely. Historically, that’s what most immigrants do. In every age. They work here for a few years, then go back.

More than 60% of Italians went back for instance.


…or were DEPORTED. The rest of your screed is pure, unadulterated AS (My new term for BS).


Most went back on their own. Again, following the same trend as immigrants before them; the Germans, the Irish, the Huguenots.

And yet, you admit I’m right Dave.

You can’t give me a moral reason for “why not?”

The only thing you give me is emotional backlashes. Not a reason.


I admit NOTHING, AS. Speak of your OWN posts and don’t impute things to mine that I never said nor intended.


Yet you still can’t offer a reason. So it’s the same thing.

You can’t formulate one, you’re just giving me emotional feedback.

There is no reason to deny an innocent, healthy person entry. No moral ones at any rate.