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 business — including 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.
Help spread the word. Follow us on Facebook. Save ZAP $$ by setting Following to “See First” * Even better, subscribe…[mc4wp_form id=”4582″]
Excellent article, simply stated.
I agree. “Illegal alien” is a red herring. The problem is not where people come from, but what is extracted from us to give to them when they get here. Get rid of the welfare state. Privatize schools. Get the government out of health care. Desirable immigrants will come here and thrive, and contribute. “Free lunch” seekers will find some other socialist “paradise” and go there.
Getting rid of the welfare state, privatizing education and health care are worthy goals, but I don’t expect they will be achieved in my lifetime or yours. To Jim, “Juan” is a skilled and reliable employee. But, because Jim lacks the resources to fully vet “Juan”, he is unaware that “Juan” is also a part-time rapist and murder as well as needing serious medical care which he’s planning to get for free at the local hospital. That “Juan” is not a citizen does not substantially reduce the harm that he can do.
Neal, Is he a rapist and murderer because his name is Juan?
No. No telling how he came to be that.
Suppose instead of hiring Juan I hire John, who was born in Connecticut and migrated to Texas recently. I don’t have the resources to “vet” him either. He could likewise turn out to be a rapist/murderer or have some expensive-to-treat disease. How is this different from Jim hiring Juan?
Also of some concern to the public: The State passed a statute, requiring Jim to pay Juan something called the Legal Minimum Wage. The State further requires Jim to pay it a tax, which it calls FICA, so that it can promise Juan a Social Security check and Medicare benefits when he retires. It further requires Jim to pay a second tax, into an “unemployment compensation fund”, that The State will use to pay Juan a replacement income, while Juan looks for another job, if Jim stops paying Juan to work for him. Finally, The State demands that Jim buy a policy of Worker’s Compensation insurance for Juan, in case Juan is injured on the job.
By bringing Juan across that border, Jim must do one of two things.
Thing One: Jim obeys the demands of The State and, despite moral misgivings, pays The State each and every one of these demanded payments of money, and pays them in the currency The State demands. (Note, please, that the Nixon Dollar acquires it’s value not because The State defines it, but because The State demands that we accumulate dollars periodically and surrender them to it in payment of taxes and fees it demands. Jim might pay Juan in fish, garlic, or tortillas, but The State wants payment in currency.)
Thing Two: Jim disobeys The State and violates one or more of these statutes, carrying out a voluntary agreement with Juan that The State has taxed in some way.
If Jim obeys The State, he and other State-obedient people have no quarrel with each other.
What happens when Jim disobeys The State, and does not make one of the mandated payments to The State, arising from his transactions with Juan? Jim now is at a competitive advantage over his State-obeying neighbors, because his State-obeying neighbors must pay the taxes and fees when they hire one another to do work, that Jim evades by hiring Juan. The State, having a self-interest in maintaining obedience to it’s tax laws, seeks a way to punish Jim for his deal with Juan.
Unfortunately, there is not just one layer of The State. Because it has as many layers to it as a malignant glioblastoma, it finds numerous ways to entangle itself in Jim and Juan’s transaction. For example, if Jim and Juan resided in the City of Chicago, there’s one corporate entity of The State, calling itself The City of Chicago, which has a law legalizing portions of Jim and Juan’s transaction. The portion of the transaction, by which Jim brought Juan into his house and put him to work, is “legal”. The portion by which Jim pays taxes, is unimportant to The City of Chicago, except for that portion that it labels “City Income Tax”. So if Jim overpays his City Income Tax, sufficiently to keep the Chicago element of The State pleased with it’s share of the loot, it will shield Jim and Juan’s business arrangement from surveillance by other elements of The State. Meanwhile, a second element of The State, which calls itself The Federal Government, and a third element of The State, which calls itself The State of Illinois, considers Jim a tax cheat for bringing Juan into the country, unless Jim pays all the payments they each demand for his hiring of Juan.
Now bring in the private sector workers we call “immigration lawyers” and “tax attorneys” to sort this all out, in return for fees they charge.
The simplest way for Juan to get permission from The State to live in Chicago, is to bypass Jim and the attorneys completely. He can walk into any US consulate or embassy in his home country and inquire about enlisting in our Armed Forces. If he serves four years he gets US citizenship and can live anywhere he wants. Assuming he isn’t shot dead, defending The State against it’s ever-expanding list of new enemies, he gets to be a citizen of this place and pay taxes to The State. (Or he can stay where he is, and pay taxes to the local branch of The State. See the problem, folks? It’s everywhere!)
My advice: Jim is wise to stay in Ohio. The known evils are easier to understand, than the unknown ones.
If Juan is from Mexico, he doesn’t have to go to the US to get free or almost free medical care. One might question its quality (as many physicians in private practice do) but not its availability, at least in populated areas.
I totally agree and the reason I’m against immigration and against allowing anyone else in is because all we do is give them money let them sit on their ass and vote and pretty soon we won’t have a country to give them
Until the welfare state is ended we cant allow unlimited immigration it just doesn’t work
I want to be on Jim side but it’s a utopian idea who’s time is still a wee bit away
That is the only way the United States wins on the immigration issue.
Your description is too vague and does not address this subject very well. The devil is in the details. Are you saying that you can bypass hiring an American so you can pay someone else less money because they will take anything you give them?
Mike, Far from being vague, I worried I was too blunt. If someone “will take” what I’ve offered, then I’m saying it’s none of your business. And just to show you that this is actually a principle, if you offer and they take, it’s none of my business.
An excellent article! I agree with the author’s conclusion that my voluntary association with another is none of anybody elses’ business but some of the premises (slightly) bother me.
While I understand the inclusion of discussion of the ‘Constitution’ and laws for those who imagine these things exist, for me, these are non-issues.
The constitution and laws are nothing more than words written on pieces of paper by persons with which I have no relationship, which other persons bandy around and attempt to use as some spurious justification for interfering in my peaceful existence.
Nothing has ever been written on a piece of paper or ever will be written on a piece of paper that can create a right for any person to interfere in my peaceful existence however much they might imagine it to be so or they wish it to be so.
I am fully aware that actions have consequences and that such delusional persons might negatively impact my peaceful existence if I ‘disobey’ their pieces of paper. Should I encounter such a person I will choose my actions so as to minimise any negative effects of their delusions and that this might look to them like I am ‘obeying the law’.
Graham, Many people who make anti-immigrant arguments, who would call someone an “illegal alien,” claim reverence for the Constitution and Jehovah.
Amen to this! People in rooms banding together make no laws – laws are immutable and existed long before people. The things made by these rogue entities are legislation which is not worth more than the paper it is written on, except as you pointed out, when “other persons bandy around them” giving them temporary importance through inappropriate use of force.
The problem of immigration laws began a century ago with the Harvard-based Eugenics Movement. Eugenics leaders sought to create a Marxist paradise, where humans lived, each working according to the best of his ability, sharing with others according to their needs. Since sickly people have greater needs, and often have lesser abilities, than healthy people, Eugenics sought to breed a New Communist Human, who remained healthy until about age 60 and then quickly keeled over dead, without costing Society much in terms of health care and aid to the elderly.
The backers of the Harvard Eugenics Movement were heirs to fortunes made by highly-productive parents and grandparents. They indulged themselves in this dream of re-making human society, largely because Marx’s dialectical materialism offered an argument against the existence of God and against religion-based limits governing personal conduct. In short, the Harvard Eugenics Movement leaders wanted the power to lie, cheat, steal, and abuse people (women in particular) with impunity, and they felt they could self-justify these actions by abandoning religion.
Because the political majority in America tried to practice Christianity in those days, winning political support for these explicitly anti-Christian views, required deception.
The deception chosen by the leaders of the Harvard Eugenics Movement, was to pretend that immigrants carried communicable diseases, and that letting too many of them into the country would make American citizens sick.
The Harvard Eugenics Movement has been extensively discussed elsewhere. An excellent introduction to the inner workings of this subversive anti-Freedom movement was written by A.E. Salmaan, “Harvard and the Holocaust”. (https://www.academia.edu/3091739/Harvard_and_the_Holocaust ). And no, the title is not hyperbole. Several Harvard Eugenics Movement graduates took policy-making positions in the government of Nazi Germany. Harvard Law graduates, influenced by the Eugenics Movement, drafted statutes and got them tested in US courts, imposing various restrictions on people based on their supposedly-inferior health. Other Harvard Law graduates translated these American-tested laws into German, where they became the basis of the Nuremberg Laws that enslaved and murdered Germany’s Jews. When German scientific societies rejected the racist ideas of the Harvard Eugenics Movement, for lack of the most basic of scientific principles—experimental proof that the ideas were true—Hitler fired the German academics and replaced them with Harvard-trained academics.
I highly recommend reading the Salmaan article. It’s why I provided the link. It will take about 30 minutes to digest the contents. And one will never look at the immigration issue in quite the same way, once one understands the scam that the Harvard Eugenics Movement pulled.
Wow as in OMG.
We all have the right to move peacefully, no exceptions.
It would be great if freedom and liberty were honored and respected by all, and therefore there would be no need for sovereign borders.
But,as long as this country has a huge Welfare State that plunders and takes from one and gives the fruits of ones labor to another (without your permission), and as long as their are terrorist maniacs invading this country and willing to kill and destroy innocent people and our freedoms and liberties … then this sovereign country needs to have safe-guarded borders and locks …. just as the vast majority have locks on their doors to keep those inside safe and free from harm.
Why not address the fundamental incentive for terrorists wanting to kill Americans: revenge for U.S. military bombing innocent civilians in the Middle East?
Stop the bombing! Withdraw all U.S. troops from foreign countries!
I am not a libertarian. I am a constitutional conservative. I believe in the right to life for all unborn children from the moment of conception. A baby in its mother’s womb is not part of her body. I totally disagree with your idealistic view on immigration. I agree with at least 95% of the libertarian worldview but the other 5% is a total “deal breaker” [requested unsubscribe] and totally incompatible with my biblical worldview. I think that you are so open-minded that your brains fell out. Sincerely, Dennis Oakes
Mr. Oakes, I think you do your cause a disservice by disassociating with people with whom you claim to have 95% agreement. That doesn’t make strategic sense.
I’m also a believer, so I’m going to speak plain (but not as blunt as you, suggesting my brains fell out). I think you do a disservice to the cause of Christ by calling your view “biblical.” You’re arguing that some persons don’t get the rights your God gave you, which means they’re not God-given, but location specific and government-granted. And, given that the second Great Commandment is to “love your neighbor as you love yourself,” I would ask why you don’t want the blessings you’ve enjoyed bestowed on others?
But even by “chapter and verse” calling your view “biblical” is debatable, at best. The evidence that it’s anti-Biblical appears overwhelming, as I recounted in a 2014 piece I wrote for Downsize DC, titled Maybe Immigration Caps are Unconstitutional, but the Bible Says…
I RESPECTFULLY encourage you to reconsider.
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
— 1 Timothy 5:8
“To further prove this point, Article One, Section 9 (of the Constitution) specifically left all decisions about immigration to the states.”
So I looked this up and this is all I could find about immigration in A1S9.
Clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
So what does that mean?
A little Googling and I found this site.
This is their assessment of what this means.
This is another euphemistic nod to America’s dark history of slavery. “Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit” is a really long-winded way of saying “slaves” without actually saying “slaves.” The Constitution barred any attempt to outlaw the slave trade before 1808. As soon as that date rolled around, Congress did vote to block the international slave trade, although slaves continued to be sold within the country and slavery itself lasted for almost another 60 years.
So help me understand how we get from this explanation to; “To further prove this point, Article One, Section 9 (of the Constitution) specifically left all decisions about immigration to the states.” Perhaps there was something else to this that I’m missing.
I’m just trying to understand.
Randall, Thanks for writing. You are correct that, in the minds of the men who included Article One Section 9, this portion of the Constitution was about an aspect of slavery. Every one of us wishes that the importation of Africans for slavery was ended with ratification of the nation. But it wasn’t. The best the anti-slavery forces at the Constitutional Convention could do was secure a future constitutional ban the practice of importing persons for sale.
So how is it relevant now?
By way of background, it must first be explained that the Tenth Amendment makes explicit what was clear to most of the Founders, even on the Federalist side. If the power is not explicitly granted to the federal government, it is presumed to belong to the states or the people. This is called the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers — enumerated because you can actually count them. That’s a crucial concept for a constitutionally-limited government (if you believe the Constitution limits government, as most conservatives pretend).
So one day, we made the argument you see in the article above — naturalization and immigration (migration) are not the same. We explicitly said that the Constitution grants no power over immigration, only naturalization. Then, we got a letter. It came from a constitutional expert (no joke, he has a very well-developed website on the constitution). He pointed out that we were wrong. The Constitution did grant provide a governmental power over migration. Indeed, just a few short years ago, a border state governor claimed this gave her the power to restrict immigration. When this correspondent wrote to us, we paused to research the matter because we believe it’s important to admit error, if and when we’re wrong.
It would be easy to sweep this section of the Constitution under the rug, as part of our ugly antebellum past. But here’s the rub: It was never amended OUT of the Constitution. Not only does the ban on “importing” human beings still exist (and is still enforced), but nothing was ever done about the migration portion. It’s still there too.
For what it’s worth, we don’t personally believe ANY of the fifty states are granted this power by nature or nature’s God either. But we cannot claim there’s no constitutional position on migration. It’s only honest to admit it’s there and explain it. We believe being open about this actually helps underscore our point that there’s no federal power to limit immigration. Simply put, we want to call the bluff, even induce cognitive dissonance, for those who want to pretend they’re for constitutionally limited-government and, at the same time, want a massive program of immigration restriction, border control, national ID schemes, business regulations, and tax-funded deportation.
Clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Reading this, it tells me that the states may allow for the migration or importation of anyone without restriction up to the year 1808. (“shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight”) Which implies that after the year 1808 Congress may prohibit such migration or importation to the states.
I agree with you about enumerated powers and the 10th amendment but I’m not sure your argument about A1S9 does what you say it does.
Another interpretation of Clause 1, is that after 1808, Congress may impose a tax or duty on the importation of foreign workers, exceeding 10 dollars per person imported.
Reasonably the existing organized crime cartels that operate illegal human-trafficking businesses, could be made legal and taxed.
The incentives for illegal human-trafficking are easily seen in examining California law.
The State of California prohibits its law-enforcement authorities from initiating contacts with the federal immigration authorities. This means that if local police suspect a person of running an illegal sweatshop that underpays it’s workers, and the workers aren’t Americans, police may not ask federal immigration authorities to investigate whether the workers were brought here legally.
The State of California also passed a statute, setting the legal minimum wage at a very high rate, reaching $15 per hour in 2020. Since most service businesses cannot afford to pay this much money, those businesses will be taken over by organized crime entities that fill the jobs by human trafficking.
The victims of human trafficking don’t realize they are victims until long after they’ve become victims. Because they entered the US illegally, they must exit the US and re-enter legally, to have standing to sue in our courts.
This means that they lack the right to haul their employer into court, if the employer refuses to pay them for the work they did. Or pays them far less money than agreed. Or subjects them to dangerous, harmful working conditions.
If an illegal alien sues in court, the alien gets deported and federal authorities may confiscate any money or possessions the person has, before sending the person back to his country of origin.
That is the harsh reality of human trafficking.
What many such victims do to escape the control of organized crime, is attempt to have children while inside the US. A child born here has birthright citizenship. Under California statute, that child then has an Entitlement from the State, to be cared for by his or her natural parents, and on that basis, California pays welfare benefits taken from taxpayers, to the parents of the child. For many families that is their exit strategy to escape the clutches of organized crime. Once on welfare, each parent can attend courses at the local community college, learn English, learn a useful skill or trade, and re-enter the economy as a wage earner, no longer subject to a crime boss who owns an illegal sweatshop.
Meanwhile, the crime bosses who run the illegal sweatshops have a sweetheart deal with politicians. They’re allowed to violate the law that mandates all their competitors to pay a $15-an-hour minimum wage, because police are not allowed to charge them for the violation. The crime bosses buy this protection with payments of money that are called Political Campaign Contributions, which finance commercial advertising that politicians use to get re-elected. Media corporations are willfully blind to the human trafficking business, because those political campaign contributions buy the attack ads that jam our airwaves every election year.
Americans are angry at being excluded from their own economy, by statutes bought and paid for by organized crime, that have the effect of subsidizing human trafficking. However, relatively few Americans understand the role that organized crime plays in causing these problems.
In large part this is the result of the two-party monopoly on American electoral politics. Real competition would make it harder to conceal facts from the public. Two parties can agree among themselves to fight over issues that are meaningless, while each party takes payoff money to remain silent about issues that someone will pay to have hushed up. We see that in California with human trafficking that feeds labor into illegal sweatshops. We see that in the Uranium One scandal, where 20% of US uranium reserves got sold at record-low prices to a group of Russian billionaires who plan to re-sell that uranium in China at an enormous profit…the Russian billionaires gave money to operatives from both US political parties, in exchange for the parties agreeing not to put a tax on the uranium deal or even discuss the idea. Special Prosecutor Robert Muller set out to prove that Donald Trump took money from the Russian billionaires or used their help to win the election, ended up indicting Republican lobbyist Paul Manafort for taking money from the Russian billionaires, and also had to indict another lobbyist who worked for the Democratic Party, who also took money.
If there’s a lesson to be learned here, it’s that the two-party system makes it too easy to hush discussion of important issues, because with enough money, one can buy the cooperation of both parties.A story can be re-told in ways that leave the truly important parts of the story out completely.
We see this in California’s human trafficking problem. We don’t even call it human trafficking. We’ve learned to call it “illegal immigration”. This even though most of the illegal immigrants paid money to an organized crime group, to be smuggled across the US border and given a job at a sweatshop, not realizing just how bad their situation would be, once they arrived here. Not having access to the courts, places them at the mercy of the gangsters who brought them here.
If I understand you correctly, since Article 1 Section 9, Clause 1 is still in effect, then Congress *does* have the power to pass laws prohibiting migration. The explicitly specified 1808 restriction has long since expired. And whether the clause was left in place by accident or on purpose is immaterial. The fact is that it is still there. I would personally suppose that even if the founders originally intended it to only be about slaves, the authors of the civil war amendments saw a broader need and left it in place on purpose.
Although our system of government is founded on our rights being granted by God rather than the State, you must also consider the fact that other States do not necessarily agree. The USA exists only as a small federation of States sharing this belief among many other States that do not.
Within our federation, we believe that our freedoms are granted by God and protected by our Constitution whether the threat is internal or external. Outside our federation of States, there are many other (and in many cases incompatible) beliefs.
For example, a CT resident is perfectly free to move to TX as they desire. They’ll be treated just as much a citizen as they were in CT because they are still in a federated State. If that CT resident decides to move to some other country, then they will have to deal with the beliefs held in that country.
Here in our USA, we have been living the dream for 200+ years and have passed many laws of dubious constitutionality. Thanks to groups like the DC Foundation and the ZAP, we are addressing them as we are able. However, at this point in time the USA is very much a welfare State. As such it adds perverse incentives attracting an additional class of migrants who care less (or even nothing) about our beliefs as they care about our handouts. Some small number even come here with the explicit intent to cause us harm.
Since the cost of these handouts are spread across all productive citizens, it is entirely appropriate for Congress to pass laws limiting immigration in order to protect us.
Regarding your right to associate with these illegal immigrants, I believe you still have the right to visit them in their own country. They may also be able to *visit* you here (and then return home). But they have no right to move to our country on their own, and you don’t have the right to invite them to come live here without complying with the USA’s immigration laws.
Even if immigrants aren’t coming across the border shooting guns and murdering people, that does not mean that they aren’t attacking our beliefs and our way of life. They don’t need guns for that. Ours is a precariously balanced system of government, reliant on diligent citizens, and easily corrupted. By their very presence, they will destroy us by siphoning off our economic resources, diluting our voting rights, and ultimately transforming the belief system that made the USA successful into a broken belief system that more closely reflects their own.
Paradoxically, it does not matter if restricting immigration is not consistent with our belief that people have a God-given right to move about freely. Those freedoms are Constitutionally protected by us *within* our federated States. Immigration laws are by their very nature applied at the boundary between our beliefs and theirs. They exist to help define how we interface our beliefs with other potentially dangerous beliefs.
If we are eventually able to address the welfare state laws, it will help to realign the incentives for migrants. If that happens and migrants start coming here wanting to share our beliefs and live in freedom rather than drain our resources and transform us from within, then we may be able to relax immigration laws some day.
But not today.
My conclusion is that Congress must use the power still granted to it in Article 1 Section 9 to protect its citizens from this very real threat until it is no longer necessary.
Joseph, Please read the amendment before commenting. 1808 restriction didn’t expire it began. And the amendment didn’t give Congress power, but the various states. This is a rather long comment which could’ve been much shorter.
Jim, I usually agree with you, but this time I was certain you were wrong. I thought I knew the Constitution inside out. I was sure that immigration and naturalization were among the enumerated powers. When I reread the entire Constitution and Articles of Confederation I found there was no mention of immigration at all, and Art 1, Sec 9 was the only reference to naturalization. So, you were right on the mark when you said, “The federal government was never constitutionally authorized to regulate immigration — or many other things for that matter.” . My apologies, sir.
As to the “many other things,” I agree, we have far more government than authorized by the Constitution and I would like to shrink it by at least 50% (to start). Among the many things NOT specifically authorized by the Articles of Confederation (same as Articles of Incorporation for a business) which established the federal union called “The United States of America” or the Constitution (the bylaws under which it operates), are education, energy, agriculture, transportation (other than the post roads which may cover the Interstate and US highway system), health, housing, securities, labor, individual welfare (only the nation’s general welfare, as in well-being), and other functions that are none of the federal union’s business. If the USA (the union, not the country, America) were actually held down by the “chains of the Constitution” and concentrated on just those 16 or so functions it was authorized to perform on behalf of the several States, there’d be no debt, much lower taxes, and fewer useless wars.
Keep at them Jim. Make the ingrained politicians mad enough to spit. Then strangle them with those chains of the Constitution and your logic. I’ll back you up by posting your articles on my blog and FB page.
The true hallmark of a free society is the respect of private property rights and those rights are the ones always targeted by the state. It is no surprise that many resident aliens cross the border in order to get their distribution of stolen goods in the form of government welfare.
Dave, Did immigrants give us those programs, or did old, white progressives do that? Do you support welfare programs? I’m betting no. Given that, wouldn’t the solution be to slash or terminate those programs? Why take one wrong and compound it with another?
Old WHITE progressives? Is that really what you want to say, Jim?
Yes, of course, I very much mean it. The welfare programs weren’t designed by the brown people that anti-immigration types despise so much. They were designed by the very people I described. That’s self-evident.
If I, as an Individual, have the right to lock my door to deny entry to someone, and my neighbors have the same right – does not the village have a right to deny access as an extension of those individual rights?
And if the village has those same rights, does not the County, or State?
We all know that the Federal Government doesn’t enjoy that right, but focusing on the overreaching gluttony of the Federal Government obscures the point. The point is, that if an Individual has a right, then by extension, the Group to which they belong has the same right.
MLGov.org & GoIDCSA.com
If you own the county or state, can you walk into its armory, carry a gun in the buildings under its domain, or generally go wherever you want? Is it really YOUR property? I’m so tired of this flawed and flaccid analogy. I addressed it, in greater detail, here: https://studentsforliberty.liberty.me/i-want-lew-rockwell-to-be-libertarian-on-immigration/
Jim Babka said, “If you own the county or state, can you walk into its armory, carry a gun in the buildings under its domain, or generally go wherever you want? Is it really YOUR property?”
I say, if I own something, by definition it is MY property. So, Jim’s question about the county or state he says I own, is difficult to understand. If Jim expanded his argument to say I own the Universe, then by his premise, I can do whatever I wish with it. But of course I don’t own the Universe, a State, or a County.
But to stay with Jim’s specific question, if I own the county or state – yes, of course I can walk into its armory, carry a gun in the buildings under its domain, and generally go wherever I want.
Let’s start at the beginning again….
1) If I own a house and the property on which it sits, I have the right to deny entry to anyone.
2) If my contiguous neighbors each own their houses and lots, we therefore all enjoy those same rights to exclude others. And,
3) If our neighborhood is made up of people who share the same opinion about not letting certain people onto our property, then by default our neighborhood is off limits to those people. We don’t even have to get together and vote on who we will or won’t admit, if we by chance dislike the same people, they are therefore de facto banned from our neighborhood.
Even without a neighborhood ordinance stating No Martians Allowed, the effect is the same. And if there were such a neighborhood ordinance posted at every entrance to our neighborhood, that wouldn’t change the lawful rights we individually possess. We are simply stating the rules we have agreed upon, for others to see.
To me this is an obvious argument – not flawed or flaccid. Jim,if you disagree regarding our Individual, and/or Group rights in the above, please explain. If do you disagree… in your understanding, at what point does what I own cease to be my property – such that I have to admit Martians? At what point may I or my neighbors not exclude whomever we choose?
As you stated in your letter to Lew Rockwell, “…you cannot really make an exception to a principle without losing the principle itself.” https://studentsforliberty.liberty.me/i-want-lew-rockwell-to-be-libertarian-on-immigration/
I don’t think that what Jim wrote disagrees with what you wrote. The point is that we do not own the country or the government, so there are no property rights involved in the issue of political borders.
Indeed, immigration rules established by politicians tend to trample property rights.
I noticed that you posited only a neighborhood where people want to exclude others. But what about two side-by-side property owners on the Mexican border? One owner wants to let Mexicans cross the border onto his property, and the other does not. It seems to me that both are entirely within their rights, no matter what some gang of politicians may say about it.
You bring up a number of points.
#1 “I don’t think that what Jim wrote disagrees with what you wrote.”
Calling my argument flawed and flaccid, doesn’t sound like agreement to me. I’ll wait to read his response.
#2 “…we do not own the country or the government”
Of course we do! Reread the rulebook. We the People own them both! And our form of Governance was supposed to protect our rights as the owners. Representative Democracy worked like gangbusters for a while – not any more.
If someone steals your car, does that mean that you have lost your lawful property rights over it? I think not. The fact that Representative Democracies have failed, and politicians have overstepped their rightful duties, does not mean that We the People have lost our Rights in the Law. It just means that the system we adopted has failed. (I have developed an improvement of Representative Democracy. You can read about it here: MLGov.org, and GoIDCSA.com.)
#3 “But what about two side-by-side property owners on the Mexican border? One owner wants to let Mexicans cross the border onto his property, and the other does not.”
If there were no governing authority which had lawful authority over the question of Mexicans crossing the border, sure – each neighbor is within their rights to accept or exclude Mexicans. But since all border states have decided that allowing Mexicans across their borders without the proper paperwork and procedure, is illegal, for the moment the decision is out of the hands of those specific property owners.
#4 “It seems to me that both are entirely within their rights, no matter what some gang of politicians may say about it.”
You are ignoring realpolitik! And if you had voted for that same gang of politicians because they agreed with your views, you would probably be quite happy with what they say, and the laws they promulgate.
As a general comment about Libertarianism, I agree with the basics:
“Libertarianism (Latin: libertas, “freedom”) is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment and self-ownership.”
But I disagree with:
“Classical libertarians, notably libertarian socialists and anarchists,seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of their common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.”
On balance I align with the Anarcho-capitalists’ views.
“Libertarian socialists and minarchists think that a minimal centralized government is necessary, whilst anarchists and anarcho-capitalists propose to completely eliminate the state.”
I disagree that an open door policy is a good idea. It is Human Nature for folks to be very particular about who is wandering around on their property.
“Free immigration (free movement of people) is often regarded as one of the core concepts of libertarian theory and philosophy. ” Oh, well….
Even if strangers are friendly and industrious, we all want folks to knock first, and ask permission to enter our domain. So I disagree with this also:
“Libertarians believe that if someone is peaceful, they should be welcome to immigrate to the United States.” https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/
I’ll end with a restatement of the real issue here:
Can political jurisdictions exclude specific people from their territories? I say, yes they can.
Because if individuals have certain Rights, then those Rights extend to the Groups they create – i.e. towns, counties, states, nations, international groups.
You wrote, “I’ll end with a restatement of the real issue here: Can political jurisdictions exclude specific people from their territories? I say, yes they can.” Yes, for all the extra words you just copied and posted here, you’re correct that this is the nub.
And it boils down to this: You’re using property ownership to undo property ownership. As the original article explained, your property is NOT mine. If you invite someone on to your property, it’s none of my business. In the view you’re taking, everyone in your neighborhood has first claim on your property — they can tell you what you will or won’t do with it. That means it’s not really your property. You’re making this very complicated, where it’s actually that simple.
You say, “You’re making this very complicated, where it’s actually that simple.” I think that if it really were that simple, you and I would not be discussing it as such length; we’ve been going at this for 2 years now – there are obviously some complications! I think the major complication we are currently discussing is in determining how and when Groups enjoy rights.
Most Libertarians are quick to point out that if an Individual does NOT enjoy a certain Right, then a Group of similar individuals cannot logically assert that they as a Group suddenly do have that right. I agree.
All I’m pointing out is a corollary to that statement of fact.
Once again… if an Individual DOES have a Right, and that individual forms a Group with others enjoying that same right, then ipso facto, presto chango, that Group enjoys the same right. Or, stated another way… if individual A has the Right to do X, and so do individuals B, C, & D – then a Group made up of A, B, C, & D also enjoys the right to do X. Too simple?
Let me suggest that what is hanging this discussion up, is that you are incensed that there are brutish men with guns and silly hats patrolling lines in the sand – and they have the gall to insist that you and I and Martians do what they tell us. I too am incensed….
The traditional solution offered by the Powers that Shouldn’t Be – is to VOTE THE BUMS OUT. But we both know that the system itself is flawed. All too often the system itself black-magically turns our trusted fellows into Bums once they get into office; and then newly hired brutish men continue to wave guns in our faces. Not OK….
As I have mentioned – I have developed a system of governance which might solve that problem.
Happy New Year to all! (Martians included.)
Given the mess this country is in, is it going to be helpful to continue to allow people from other countries to flood into this country? As some have pointed out, the more people from other countries who sneak in here and care nothing for any principles of America, have no skills, do not speak the language and really don’t care to and who are quite primitive, the quicker this country becomes what the globalists have dreamed of. They are being used to destroy what remains of America.
Certainly the welfare state, the alphabet agencies, federal reserve, IRS, totally broken “educational” system, “health” care system, ad nauseam MUST go. How would this happen when non-Americans communists are running the show?
I don’t like what’s happening in Europe with the total invasion of muslims. Europe, or at least many countries, are history. Is this invasion what should happen here? Because, as far as I can see, that’s what will happen unless we take some firm steps. It’s taken many years to get to this point but I do not see any quickie solutions and, Constitutionally, it would not be pretty.
For a long time, there has been an agenda for this country to destroy it. Most of the presidents have been very lacking in integrity and they’ve been surrounded by career “public servants”. The foundations have been chipped away continuously by the ever-present deep state and replaced with nothing that belongs there. I think we are at a unique time in our history when enough people have finally awakened to the horror show that has become this country. Do we try to clean it up or do we let it die?
I lock the doors to my home and my car. It’s MY home and MY car and I say who enters them. Either they’re mine or they belongs to the collective. How can we hope to have a country that makes any sense when we cannot say who enters and who does not? That is utter chaos and total lawlessness.
Ellen, The collective is comprised of individuals. If the individuals have joined the collective voluntarily, then they are subject to the decision-making process they’ve agreed on. If it’s a coercive collective, say the U.S., then the solution involves abolishing the collective and establishing private property rights.
This is why I can’t stand Libertarians anymore. To poke a whole in this argument all you have to do is look at Europe and see all of the no-go zones, and terrorist activities that have happened since they threw open their borders. The increase in rape crimes in Sweden is real eye opener.
It is within the purview of the United States government to enforce and create immigration law. It has nothing to do with your freedom of association when you invite and illegal alien into your home. They are breaking US federal law by coming into the country illegally, and by giving them jobs and shelter, you are an accessory to their crime. This whole, “People can’t be illegal,” is a totally farcical. People doing illegal things must and should face repercussions for their actions. This can also be said of people who are helping them do so, it has nothing to do with freedom of association. You cannot have a sovereign country and not enforce borders.
As many have pointed out, you also cannot have liberal immigration standard and have a welfare state at the same time. I would also say that you can’t have birth right citizenship either. I always find it hypocritical how Libertarians want unlimited immigration from the third world, and have no problem with the property of US citizens being stolen and used to subsidize them.
This country was built by migrating people from the first world, but most of the immigration is currently coming from third world countries (since the 60s anyway). Why is this? Because third world immigrants vote overwhelmingly for the Left. If you support immigration policies that treats people from the third world the same as those from the first you’re being a fool. When you import people from the third world into the first world you will eventually end up with the third world. California is a very good example of how the state swings to the Left with third world immigration.
It’s very simple. Non-citizens breaking laws, leads to the debt of those who obey them.