No Border Can Keep Out a Desirable Resident

December 15, 2017
Featured image for “No Border Can Keep Out a Desirable Resident”

Declaring someone an ‘illegal’ alien means sticking your nose where it has no right to be Retweet

If I invite Juan, who is from a country south of the border, to be a resident in an apartment I own and work at a company I manage, Juan is welcome. Period. It’s no one else’s businessincluding yours. No border, no law can, morally or constitutionally, use the location of his birth or the place of his citizenship against him.

Declaring him an “illegal alien” happens when there’s a failure to recognize the difference between a resident and a citizen. It’s also the case that such a declaration equals a blatant disrespect for the rights of Americans who want to associate with resident aliens.

There is a difference between a resident and a citizen. A simple illustration makes this clear…

Most clubs have bylaws. These bylaws spell out who can be a member. Membership in the club known as the United States of America is called citizenship.

The Constitution only addresses the rules required for citizenship (naturalization), not residency.

Thanks to the Tenth Amendment, we know that the Constitution grants zero authority over who can reside here. Choosing where to reside is a natural, inalienable, pre-constitutional human right.

To further prove this point, Article One, Section 9 (of the Constitution) specifically left all decisions about immigration to the states. This fact was recognized until approximately 1865. The federal government was never constitutionally authorized to regulate immigration — or many other things for that matter.

This early lack of residency regulation shouldn’t be all that surprising because the founders understood that an immigrant’s rights, like your rights, are pre-constitutional. According to the Declaration of Independence, these rights were granted to both of you by the Creator, not the whim of your current, favorite politician.

But we can also say current immigration laws are immoral. Deeming a human being to be “illegal” is arbitrary. Stated differently, laws can be changed instantly, on a whim, for better or worse. If you argue that someone is “illegal” today, then I would hope you’ll join me in changing the law so that tomorrow they are no longer illegal.

Making human freedoms (such as movement) illegal, even if done by republican procedure, doesn’t justify the law. It’s possible for laws to be immoral and inhumane. Deeming the peaceful activities of persons, including the search for a better life, to be a crime called “illegal immigration” qualifies as inhumane.

Or, perhaps you believe God is a respecter of persons and some of us were born better than others. The word for that is bigotry.

Finally, if neither God-given constitutional rights nor your humanity are sufficient for you to find room for the immigrant, know that others have plenty of room. You are fighting against their right to associate with immigrants. And I, a natural-born citizen, shall speak for these Americans because I have the right

  • To hire whoever I choose.
  • To rent space to whomever I please.
  • To sell goods or services to any willing buyer, regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
  • To invite “aliens” to my church or club.

When you support politicians who make some human beings “illegals,” you are robbing the rights of natural born citizens who want to do these things.

This article has covered three points and by now, perhaps, you’ve forgotten that no one has argued with you about whether the federal government can regulate membership in our little club — the United States of America. The naturalization process that leads to citizenship is, indeed, a federal power. And it makes sense that it is so.

But immigration, a.k.a., the residency of people who are not your family is, well… “None of our business.” To ban otherwise peaceful people from coming to such a great land is unconstitutional, inhumane, and a violation of the rights of those of us who want to interact with them, personally and commercially.

About the Author

Jim Babka

Facebook Twitter

Jim Babka is co-founder of the Zero Aggression Project and President of, Inc. He’s an author and former talk show host. Previously, he was the President of, Inc., defending free press rights all the way to the Supreme Court. He and Susie are the proud, home-schooling parents of three teenagers. He enjoys theology, UFC, target practice, and Tai Chi.

Help spread the word. Follow us on Facebook. Save ZAP $$ by setting Following to “See First”  *  Even better, subscribe…

[mc4wp_form id=”4582″]


Comments (46)