William's Fail

[Lloyd Danforth]

Pretty sad.
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/05/19/immigration_and_liberty

[Pat McCotter]

My comment to that article.

Human beings have a right to live where they choose to and can obtain the land from a proper owner or work unowned land.

Sovereign nations have power over naturalization, not immigration. The US can set rules for who becomes citizens and thus who qualifies for citizen rights, responsibilities and, as much as I think they should not exist, benefits.

The Constitution allows for naturalization and the Supreme Court has corrupted it by adding immigration.

HR1868 should be passed to place non-citizen births under the naturalization law vice automatically gaining citizenship.

[Tom Sawyer]

Oh no... everyone on the planet will move to the US...

My god, I am shocked that an economist would even suggest that there would be no natural balance established...

In the end he is just another "Law and Order" conservative... An authoritarian.... one who believes that the only thing keeping everything from falling apart is a strong, coercive Daddy... keeping us all from behaving like rabid dogs.

He also apparently believes that we just need to write a couple of new laws and we can fix this whole mess.... unwilling to accept the systemic, compounding of stupid decisions that have gotten us to where we are.

[Lance]

Certainly Williams has heard of the NAP.  Too bad that in this article the concept seems completely foreign to him.

[Kat Kanning]

 I doubt everyone would want to move to the US at this point.

[Ogre]

I know this position will make me less welcome with this group, but I like what Williams has to say here.

He really doesn't even hit it from the economic position (which I do -- I'm opposed to open borders as long as we give away housing, medical care, food, cell phones, and everything else to non citizens) -- instead, he simply states that as a country, America has a right to determine who enters the country. That's all. So I guess if you're opposed to what he's saying, then I would have to assume you're a total anarchist who doesn't believe in any laws for any person or country at any time. I have to say that I've seen too much evil in the world to know that an idea like that will work. Instead, that will (in my opinion) quickly dissolve into "might makes right" because there is no higher law that can apply.

I like the America that used to exist -- a country where people were free to work hard and experiment. A country also, that said that if you wanted to join us, great -- but you had to join us. If you liked your own culture so much, stay in the country where you have that culture. Otherwise, change and join us. But that was America of 100 years ago, sadly.

[Tom Sawyer]

My ancestors didn't need permission to come to America.

The entitlements are the problem... stupid immigration policies that created a one way valve... Mexico's stupid policies drive them out... the icing on the cake is the failed drug war.

But, I know, let's blame somebody working a landscaping job. The whole focus on "them foreigners is ruining it for the rest of us" was a misdirection by the Bush administration... to distract from two ill adviced wars, the destruction of our few remaining liberties and running our economy a ground.

[MaineShark]

He really doesn't even hit it from the economic position (which I do -- I'm opposed to open borders as long as we give away housing, medical care, food, cell phones, and everything else to non citizens) -- instead, he simply states that as a country, America has a right to determine who enters the country. That's all. So I guess if you're opposed to what he's saying, then I would have to assume you're a total anarchist who doesn't believe in any laws for any person or country at any time. I have to say that I've seen too much evil in the world to know that an idea like that will work.

What evil?  Governments create more evil than they have ever prevented.

Instead, that will (in my opinion) quickly dissolve into "might makes right" because there is no higher law that can apply.

"Might makes right" is what law is.

I like the America that used to exist -- a country where people were free to work hard and experiment. A country also, that said that if you wanted to join us, great -- but you had to join us. If you liked your own culture so much, stay in the country where you have that culture. Otherwise, change and join us. But that was America of 100 years ago, sadly.

That America never existed.  The idea that folks should be obligated to uniformity is a modern notion.  "Back in the day," immigrants came here, and brought their culture with them.  A quick look at history will show you that.

The fact that there were different groups with different interests kept the government (for a time) from handing power to any one group.  No single group had a majority, so each group would work to prevent other groups from getting special treatment.

As uniformity set in, those checks on power were diminished.  Larger and larger groups formed, who could be expected to hand over power to the politicians, in exchange for some token.

Conformity is the enemy of liberty.

And, on another note, if you do care about the law, then you're pretty well obligated to oppose Federal regulation of immigration; every last immigration law on the Federal books is 100% unconstitutional.

Joe

[Lloyd Danforth]

The Irish were way abused by the British Pigs. Many of them moved to the US to get away and many of their children became the Pigs in government.

[Ogre]

Might makes right might be how law is currently implemented in America, but that was not how this country was set up. Instead, the country's laws were based on a higher power and were based on the idea that there was something higher than the law. That is certainly missing from the country today -- but that doesn't mean that we should open our borders and encourage anyone to come take our tax money.

Of course, yes, I realize the more I read, that most people here oppose any laws at all for any reason. I just don't believe that's going to work. Yes, I know about NAP, and I like it -- but still, total anarchy only results in stronger people destroying weaker people. A Constitutional Republic can work -- it did for over a hundred years. We're just not there any more.

[MaineShark]

Might makes right might be how law is currently implemented in America, but that was not how this country was set up. Instead, the country's laws were based on a higher power and were based on the idea that there was something higher than the law.

No, that was the propaganda used to put the system in place.

It was never anything but "might makes right."

Of course, yes, I realize the more I read, that most people here oppose any laws at all for any reason. I just don't believe that's going to work. Yes, I know about NAP, and I like it -- but still, total anarchy only results in stronger people destroying weaker people.

In the last century, governments murdered a quarter of a billion men, women, and children.  If you murdered one individual a second, and didn't stop to sleep or do anything else, it would take you almost eight years to do that.  They maimed, tortured, raped, enslaved, starved, abused, and oppressed billions more.

I'm not worried about amateur criminals.  Professional criminals are much more dangerous.

A Constitutional Republic can work -- it did for over a hundred years. We're just not there any more.

So, apparently, it can't work.  If it could, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Let's try something that doesn't have a consistent record of failure, eh?

(and also, remember, you're asking them to continue doing something that the Constitution prohibits, and saying that's how you're going to "go back" to the olden days?  The days when the Feds didn't restrict immigration?)

Joe

[KBCraig]

I was afraid this thread was going to be about The President.

*whew*!

[Lloyd Danforth]

He is probably a legal immigrant

[Becky Thatcher]

I was afraid this thread was going to be about The President.

*whew*!

[Ogre]

I just fail to see the criticism of Williams' article. After all, his main point in the article seems to be that the United States has a right to make laws regarding immigration. And if you're opposed to even that idea, then I have to assume that the only alternative that one who opposes Williams would be total anarchy with zero government of any kind -- not even to enforce contracts or defend individual rights.