Since there is only One of woman born who was perfect, it's hardly a news bulletin that Ron Paul, though a decent and principled man, is susceptible to error.
It's easy to make allowances where Dr. Paul is simply mistaken, since he has proven repeatedly that he's willing to change his views as dictated by the facts, while remaining true to his principles. But it is disappointing to see him succumb to the impulse to pander to a certain slice of the GOP's activist base, as is the case with his most recent campaign ad on immigration policy. (See it here or at the bottom of this essay.)
One suitable definition of the verb “to pander” would be: “To promise something clearly impossible in the hopes of winning votes.” By that definition relatively little in that advertisement qualifies as pandering.
Three elements of the five-point plan recommended by the ad – no amnesty for illegal immigrants, no welfare benefits for the same, and an end to “birthright citizenship” -- are either sound or at least defensible. But they are sandwiched between two thick, crusty slices of pure pandering – the promise to secure the border physically, and to end “student visas from terrorist nations.”
It's always a bad sign when a candidate begins his pitch by offering something that is impossible. It is entirely impossible to create a physical barricade around our nation that will prevent illegal immigration. Attempting to do so (as I've pointed out before) will cause immense harm to the property rights of American citizens who live near the border. And with the Regime increasingly taking on the character of an undisguised garrison state, do we really want it to be in the business of sealing up the border?
Dr. Paul, an immensely intelligent man, knows all of this, which is why this element of his ad is particularly disappointing.
In his critique of the Paul campaign ad, Justin Raimondo correctly points out that the second slice of unmitigated pandering – the promise to end “student visas from terrorist nations” -- traffics in “the concept of collective guilt....[I]s every citizen of these unnamed `terrorist nations' to be declared persona non grata on account of the actions of a minuscule number of their countrymen?”
If we're going to get into the business of assigning collective national guilt for the terrorist actions of a few, how could we object if Americans were subject to international travel restrictions because of the crimes committed by Bush and Cheney and their ilk?
While the other points presented in the ad are worthier of Dr. Paul, the same can't be said of their presentation. The imagery of dusky-skinned immigrants swarming into the country is a classic Brown Peril trope, as is the ominous voice-over informing us: “Today, illegal immigrants violate our borders and overwhelm our hospitals, schools, and social services.”
Why the border fence won't work, assuming it's ever built.
Speaking on his own behalf in the Republican debates, Dr. Paul has dealt with the same subject in a way that addresses the fundamental economics of the issue: We cannot have a centralized welfare state and a fiat money economy and long, permeable borders without having immigration-related problems of the sort under discussion.
Witness Dr. Paul's comments during the Univision debate earlier this month. Taking issue with the idea of a “tamper-proof ID for illegals or immigrants,” which he said (correctly) would lead to a national ID card, Dr. Paul offered a brief lecture on the economics of immigration:
“But we have to realize where the resentment [against illegal immigrants] comes from. I believe it's related to our economy. When the economy is weakening and there's resentment because of our welfare system – jobs are going overseas; our good jobs, [and] pay is going down.... There's a lot of resentments because the welfare system is based on mandates from the federal government to put pressure on states like Florida and Texas to provide services which the local taxpayers resent. Some of our hospitals are closing. So it's an economic issue, too. If we deal with the welfare state and a healthy economy and a sound money [system] and all this wasteful spending overseas, we would have a healthy economy; I think this problem [with illegal immigration] would be greatly reduced.” (Emphasis added.)
This analysis puts the blame for overburdened “hospitals, schools, and social services” on the central government and its onerous mandates, rather than placing it entirely on the backs of the swarthy northbound masses from Latin America.
Lest it be thought that Dr. Paul was pandering in that answer – seeking to ingratiate himself in a Spanish-language debate before a Latino audience – it's worth recalling what he did just a few minutes later.
In one of the most insanely courageous acts of political principle I've ever seen, Dr. Paul – speaking in the teeth of outraged boos from the audience – defended re-opening diplomatic and economic relations with Cuba and Venezuela on the basis of the principles laid down by George Washington. He then managed to win over at least part of the house by explaining that “we create the Chavezes of the world, we create the Castros of the world, by interfering and creating chaos in their countries” -- a process which also does quite a bit to generate pressures that lead to illegal immigration.
In an interview with Newsweek, Dr. Paul reflected on the fact that as an obstetrician (is there any profession that can more properly be described as “doing God's work”?) he delivered children now referred to as “anchor babies” -- US citizens born to parents here illegally – who were “immediately put on [welfare] benefits. They can get housing allowances, food allowances, and Americans resent it because our economy is weak.... I want a healthy economy. Then we will be able to have a much more generous immigration policy, which would fit my personal philosophy and our Constitution.” (Again, emphasis added.)
Perhaps his clearest expression of this point came in Dr. Paul's interview with an Iowa newspaper editorial board, in which he elaborated on the dangers of government-enforced multiculturalism, including compelled bilingualism and welfare benefits for non-citizens.
Something to remember, lest we get just a little too sanctimonious in decrying the immigrant "invasion"....
After reiterating his complaints about the impact of those policies on local communities, Dr. Paul cut to what he considers the nub of the issue: "I'm also convinced that if we didn't have the welfare state, this would be a non-issue. If we had sound money, no welfare state, and we were thriving.... It's because we're having these economic problems that I say the illegal alien becomes an easy scapegoat."
There's the word that only Ron Paul, of all the Republican contenders, would have the candor and credibility to use. And that's the word, tragically, that best summarizes the use of illegal immigration in the most recent Paul campaign ad.
That ad is redolent of the influence of opportunistic PR flacks -- people who reflexively seek to blunt principled messages, as if they're afraid of cutting themselves on sharply defined positions. It certainly doesn't reflect what Dr. Paul has described as his "personal philosophy" regarding the issue. It also suggests that Dr. Paul needs to impose some message discipline on his campaign right now, before it falls victim to consultants and others lured by his fundraising achievements -- the sort of people who would re-brand him as the thinking man's Tom Tancredo, as if such a creature could exist.
Dum spiro, pugno!
One thing if I may.
Good fences make good neighbours.
Good fences also keep the sheep in.
As an ardent supporter of Dr. Paul's philosophy I would like to say that I have long been wary of the tendency in some to anoint him as "St Paul". If that mantle keeps being laid upon him it seems to me he is destined to disappoint.
As far as illegal immigration goes, I take note of his unique position of representing a congressional district very directly affected by this issue. It seems to me his views probably reflect that of his constituency, thus his frequent re-election.
Far worse traits can be found in a politician.
This was a challenging essay. Your point about promising something that can't be delivered holds. But I still can't get over a few things about the student Visa's thing.
"If we're going to get into the business of assigning collective national guilt for the terrorist actions of a few, how could we object if Americans were subject to international travel restrictions because of the crimes committed by Bush and Cheney and their ilk?"
I'm confused. There's no presumption that the whole world can move here; immigration's a privilege, Visa's are a privilege. That's the theory. On the other hand, the prudential reality is that, of course, we want to travel; they want to travel; migration is part of human nature. So the principle has to bend to reality, and we should use ideals of prudence, justice, charity as best we can and avoid trapping ourselves in an ideology.
So if your criticism is that, somehow on a strict theoretical basis, I'm a per se sinner for advocating a blanket ban --any blanket ban, on immigration, nah, I don't accept that. We could judge and criticize on circumstantial evidence, and if you had a history of suggesting bans on Chinese people, or Jews, or midgets, well, we might get to thinking and judging that you're heart ain't in the right place and it's throwing off your head. And then, yeah, maybe. But as it is, it's just a proposal to cut off a privilege. A privilege we have a pretty good record of extending.
And if you had a pretty good history on not having racial animus compared to the rest of the world, at least over oh, the last 50 years or so, vis a vis immigration, and then....
19 muslim guys from the Middle East ....
Do I have to go on?
So it would be a prudential discussion. My conscience is clear on this. To me it's only a question of prudence. Sounds pretty prudent to me. Sounds somewhat non-stupid, and non-immoral, especially compared to the last two administration's knee-jerk answer (bomb, invade, puppet government, rinse, repeat).
First of all, the numbers aren't that huge. About 600,000 or so foreign students per year. BTW, that's near or at the high on a long-term historical basis. About 20% from the middle east. So it's 120,000 students tops. Two state U's. Maybe. Got any numbers on specific "terrorist nations"? Notice the wiggle-room in the statement.
Second of all, pace the wiggle-room, and as I wrote to JR, who said anything about this being permanent. I have great faith in the good women of the house of Islam --and who's kidding who, that's what we're talking about; I don't think those mothers are going to put up much longer with this Osama nonsense once it starts really cutting into their brighter sons' futures.
Third, it seems pretty specifically tailored and tame as collective "punishments" go, if I have to use that term for the sake of argument. What, they have to stay home? So what? MIT has its courses online; every nation is hooked up. What's the big deal? I'm sure if you put all of Islam to a vote, either choice (a) we stay on in a few of your countries, do fly-overs, etc. etc. etc. AND you get to send some of your kids here for school OR (b) we leave and you stay and we'll try that for a while.... Well, it's like a joke question.
Again, like I wrote to JR, Thomas Sowell, two days after 911:
“Those who make being morally one-up on “our society” their top priority will have to face the painful costs of this self-indulgence. For example, those who are for flinging the borders open to all and sundry from everywhere will have to face the consequences of letting in people who can destroy us from within.
“Most of the immigrants who come here from the Middle East, for example, may be fine and decent people. But their presence provides communities where those who are neither fine nor decent can blend in unnoticed, until time to do their dirty work, as in the previous bombing of the World Trade Center…”
No single element of border security/illegal immigration prevention is 100% effective by itself. It is a combination of a barrier (fence), boots on the ground, interior employment enforcement along with the denial of free social services/education & health care that will eventually resolve the issue. As shown by the FBI statistics the fence or wall in San Diego was followed by reduced crime in San Diego county by 56.3 %. Not all of that reduction was obviously due to the fence, but the fence contributed. If a double layered fence is built like the secure fence act requires, it would obviously slow illegal entrants enough for apprehension. A virtual fence is not nearly as effective because the illegal entrants are often gone by the time the BP reaches the area. There is a reason the open border, ethnocentrists and cheap labor lobbyists are against building a fence. It would work.
Your Indian picture was a little off base. My ancestors didn't come here as immigrants, they came as conquerors.
As a "foreign devil" from Canada, I get upset when I read stuff like what Christopher wrote. And Ron Paul's stance on this issue is the one thing I cannot accept from his platform.
Why should I have to ask the government for permission to live in America? How does me going to Missouri and buying a farm hurt other people?
This is incredibly silly! Paul's view of stopping illegal immigration is not the problem at all. If you think it is check the virtual library of illegal immigration for your answers in fact;
The Heritage Foundation
The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration
Americans For Sovereignty
Now, when you start talking about isolating our country from the world in keeping our hands tied as dictators practice genocide and invade and conquer their neghboring states THEN we've got a serious problem...To mindnumbingly offer that he's anything close to correct look in a reference book of flags of the world and find that far too many are predominantly red in color. Then look up what that significance is.
Additionally, to offer that our border can be closed but to then suggest the war on drugs is a failure is catching yourself in your own lie. We had a president who also caught himself in his own lies...he resigned.
Obviously even intelligent men who show loyalty to our country by actually following our Constitution can fall into insanity and deception in other subjects.
Let him stay in the House or go back to delivering babies as he is certainly not of presidential material.
has anyone even bothered to ask ron paul what he meant by his ad--the secure borders? there are two sides to a story. if he goofed, he goofed, and it sounds like he called a spade a spade. but still, someone should ask him what he meant and if that is indeed his stance. i believe in securing the borders, but not physically. that's impossible. i believe it can be done administratively--take away the incentives (take away the federal incentives). i mean, he's stated several times to remove the incentives--hand outs and birthright citizenship.
maybe it's just me, but a simple question to him would clarify this. if he states that he meant a physical border, then you have your answer, but if he says he meant another thing, then perhaps we may find out if per se, someone exercised a bit of liberty with his intent when producing the ad.
Of all the comments posted here so far I like jackely's the best.
Frankly, I strongly believe Ron Paul is the only chance we have to prevent the inevitable slide into bureaucratic world government. ALL of the other candidates are beholden to the interests who are driving us there.
Will, I don't see any "Brown Peril" fearmongering in Mr Paul's ad. I really don't see it.
If this is pandering, then what are his promises to end the IRS, the federal Drug War, the Federal Reserve, get rid of multiple Cabinets like DHS, Education, Energy, Commerce, etc? He alone can do none of it, but as a leader expressing the need/desire to do these things, it falls on the people themselves to see them through, via their representatives in Congress. Exactly the same holds true for his promise to cut off visas to students from terror nations, which by the way is not a new development in Ron Paul's platform (he's proposed legislation in the House that includes this action).
I'm a strong Paul supporter unmoved by the fallout from this latest ad, and share some of the concerns you expressed about the risk of being re-branded by monied interests now that he's attracting services from those who do not share his values.
But to call the ad pandering? Please. His entire platform is one big pander, based on the definition you've presented.
1 Jan 08
There are many problems with our current immigration policy. The ad represents an imperfect response.
It would seem to be worthwhile for us to learn that there are those with whom we ought to disagree "gently". I am as unhappy with Justin's rather savage response to the ad as I am with the ad itself. Being as we are all on the "Peace and Freedom Team", we should not turn on each other over our infrequent disagreements on some issues. That does not mean, however, that these issues may not be discussed or clarified in such a manner that the "Peace and Freedom Team" doesn't self destruct.
Yes; Jackely is correct. This may serve as a reminder to me that Dr. Paul is not the Fourth Person of the Trinity.
I quote your opening line, with the name changed to make the point:
-Since there is only One of woman born who was perfect, it's hardly a news bulletin that +Will Grigg+, though a decent and principled man, is susceptible to error.-
And this is nowhere more evident that in YOUR stance on invasion/immigration.
Your view on Ron Paul's position on illegal invasion is mistaken NOT because he is above criticism or because some may have come close to deifying him.
Your assesment of Dr Paul's position is incorrect because your views about immigrant invasion, while perhaps well meaning and in keeping with what someone, somewhere, may have defined as Libertarian orthodoxy, are badly mistaken.
Anonymous @ 3:09 -- My perceptions are admittedly subjective regarding the "Brown Peril" tropes I saw in the ad.
I do think the depiction of illegals swimming the Rio Grande (presumably) and swarming over a border fence, coupled with the ominous voice-over, embody a different perspective on the issue than Dr. Paul's personal comments on the subject. As I noted, while Dr. Paul doesn't exempt illegal immigrants from criticism, he tends to focus most intently on the role played by the Feds in creating perverse incentives for them to come here and become clients of the welfare state.
Anonymous @ 3:33 -- You raise a fair point in noting that Dr. Paul would be able to do few, if any, of the things he proposes without a very potent and organized constituent base pressuring Congress. The key difference here is between proposing a radical change that would be immensely difficult -- such as abolishing the IRS -- and proposing something that is materially impossible -- physically securing the borders against illegal immigrants.
Short of encasing the entire country in a Simpsons-like "Cargill Dome," this CANNOT be done. And I think that it SHOULD NOT be done: There is no such thing as a one-way border barricade.
Anonymous @ 6:09 -- It might be more accurate to say that, given the volume of opinions I regularly emit, I am at best occasionally susceptible to being correct!
I have long held the position that we don't have an 'illegal immigration' problem, we have a welfare state problem.
Our welfare state is the magnet and without it there would be no immigration problem and many of the problems faced domestically would be ameliorated. We have to come to our senses and realize that "gov't charity" is destroying this country from within (the family court system is amongst the worst domestic offenders with the huge profits being made on the destruction of our own families) and without (our foreign policy has been elaborated on at length by Dr. Paul and others).
From what I've observed Dr. Paul understands this but it is a problem with no easy immediate solution as an abrupt end to our foreign and domestic welfare programs will create enormous discord (but should be done nonetheless).
Perfection is the enemy of the good.
"Short of encasing the entire country in a Simpsons-like "Cargill Dome," this CANNOT be done... There is no such thing as a one-way border barricade."
True enough, but so what?
There are many countries that have substantially secure borders and immigration control. None are perfect, but your implication that border and immigration control is utopian is a testable thesis. And I dare say it will test false. Try entering and staying in The Ukraine, Japan, or Cuba, to name a few, without proper papers. Read one of Jim Rogers' books on how he travelled around the world and came across varying degrees of control and hassle.
Christopher, your points are germane and worthwhile, as always. I'm not saying that it's impossible to regulate entry to the United States, at least to a certain extent. I am saying that erecting an impermeable physical barricade is impossible, and undesirable even if it could be done.
In addressing our immigration problems (meaning, primarily illegal immigration from Mexico), one variable we can't change is geography. And it's that variable that makes the notion of an impenetrable border fence simply untenable.
I will take up your invitation to read what Jim Rogers has to say about his experiences, of course!
Despite Dr. Paul's slip from libertarian orthodoxy, I continue to support both his presidential candidacy and an end to immigration - legal or otherwise - until sometime after we've banished our warfare/welfare state catastrophe.
If such a position causes puerile-Libertarians to wretch; then let them go to the very places/cultures from which the overwhelming majority of modern (post-1965) immigrants launch and demonstrate to us homegrown "hicks", "haters", and "nativists" the manner in which those cultures have cultivated the libertarian seedling before we further entreat them to cultivate its bloom upon this land.
There are enough candidates that have flaws without having to point out Dr. Paul. I agree with him. I used to think you were ok. No I see why the Birch Society and you were at odds.
Pick on someone else.
What a Dummy.
That ad did disappoint me. And it made me wonder if Ron actually reviewed it before they put it out. Ron's always been pretty candid about the issue and this ad didn't sound representative of his reasons for raising the immigration issue.
It seems to me his views probably reflect that of his constituency, thus his frequent re-election.
Yep, another one sees what I see in that regard. I agree with jackely completely.
The core of the welfare state problem and the message to end it is that, not "immigrants," but Ami citizens themselves are feeding from it heavily! I hate to repeat, once again, that government doesn't operate in a vacuum. We have a welfare state because the citizens want a welfare state! It's always amusing, but sad, to watch how folk seem to frame a disconnect b/w government and the ordinary citizens in a Republicratic [sic] system.
So, of course "immigrants," who mostly hail from Third World locales nowadays anyway, are going to hop into the trough as well. I think your view, Will, of a typical modern "immigrant," or rather a migrant being the more proper term, may be skewed. Or perhaps mine is as well ;). Most of the modern so-called "immigrants," at least many of the Latinos, are not coming here for liberty and freeeeedom! They are coming here to get what they can from the trough and, yes, from working various tax-free jobs too, and sending it back to their homeland. Why do they not attempt to get their entire families out of their respective homelands if liberty and freeeeeedom, and/or really emigrate from whence they came, were their ultimate goal? Are many of the ones who illegally come here really immigrants in the strict sense? I'd have to say NO! They're essentially migrants, who come for awhile to gather some bread, by whatever means, and skedaddle back to their homeyland when there's some heat.
The politicos in Washington, who are voted into office by the citizens, or as I like to call us, "commoners," basically vote precisely how the majority of the citizens in question expect them to vote concerning social programs, localized pork, immigration, etc., etc. Otherwise, they wouldn't continually re-elect those same politicos! To think otherwise, one must think the citizens to be collectively giga-stupid and are just "in the dark" about what constitutes a welfare state. Nonsense!
They want the pork, the handouts,...a welfare state!! I'm tired of excusing the people and blaming all of the crap that flows from Washington on JUST the bureaucrats and politicos. I see it nigh impossible to elect a principled man, particularly as a President of all positions, IF the people who are to do the nominating and/or electing want a welfare state. Pure insanity! The majority of the people have to be principled in order for principled leaders to be elected in the first place. Since those leaders will reflect the people.
That said, when looking at the presidential candidates specifically, even with Ron Paul's flaws, his character and principles (which reflect his district's overall views, BTW) are WAY beyond those of the other candidates because his votes have demonstrated that he's not merely running off at the mouth, but acts accordingly with how his mouth runs with his respective votes.
Forget what a sound bite of an advertisement says; what does his voting record reveal?
As I've pointed out before, Will, the people should be much more concerned with whom THEY vote into Congress since the (wo)men who constitute THAT "august" body are a more accurate reflection of who THEY really are. The hoopla and noise surrounding presidential elections is always ridiculous, as usual..sigh, especially this one, and pointless, especially this one.
As Ron Paul claims he will abide by the Constitution as President, this makes the Congress critters even more important and contention over the presidency even more pointless.
Yes, it's a catch 22 situation, I'm afraid.
As I consider myself somewhat of a realist, but a reluctant one, I think THAT is what's going to be his downfall and why he'll be defeated. It will NOT be because of MSM propaganda, commentariat propaganda, the other candidates' propaganda messages. All nonsense, since nearly everyone has other sources of info on the internet readily available to them. No, it will be because Ron Paul's (or the constitution's) views don't reflect the electorate at large.
I know you want to see the best in everyone, everywhere, Will, and so do I and most who comment here, I'd assume, but we must grasp the simple fact that the core of who WE really are, as a collective people, who together make up what we call America, is aptly and transparently demonstrated by who we put into local, state, and federal power positions repeatedly. First time could always be a roll of the die (could be a newbie with no record, for example), second time could be a fluke or we were deceived, but by the third re-election, it can't be anything other than how we really think and we want this person to represent us.
To take the conversation back to the specific and limited policy point, I'd like to quote an academic and his research:
"Out of millions who express sympathy with global jihad, only a few thousand show willingness to commit violence. They tend to go to violence in small groups consisting mostly of friends, and some kin. These groups arise within specific "scenes": neighborhoods, schools (classes, dorms), workplaces and common leisure activities (soccer, mosque, barbershop, café, online chat-rooms).
...Our interviews with friends of the 9/11 suicide pilots reveal they weren't "recruited" into Qaeda. They were Middle Eastern Arabs isolated in a Moroccan Islamic community in a Hamburg suburb. Seeking friendship, they started hanging out after mosque services, in local restaurants and barbershops, eventually living together when they self-radicalized." Scott Atran, Anthropologist, University of Michigan; Author, In Gods We Trust, http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_9.html.
This illustrates an odd thing about the numbers. If you said to me, ah, even 60,000 young men from areas with possible sympathies for radical Islam/jihad is nothing; they cannot form a legion; they will be spread between many campuses; indeed the knock-on effect of immersion into our culture and the possible beneficial effects of such cross-cultural exchange may outweigh the negatives, then my response would be that in the nature of this conflict, the opposition does not form legions but only wants for a dozen or so committed members; it's an asymetrical conflict. So what is odd is that, given the nature of the conflict numbers, it strikes me that if you were trying to set up an immigration program that selected FOR risk-of-self-radicalization factors + seemingly low (and hence seemingly non-dangerous) numbers, visas for students (i.e. 50% young men) from terrorist nations (i.e. from a radically different culture and therefore with a commensurate greater tendency to self-isolate) might just fit the bill.
To bring this back to the specific policy point, may I quite an academic and his research:
"Out of millions who express sympathy with global jihad, only a few thousand show willingness to commit violence. They tend to go to violence in small groups consisting mostly of friends, and some kin. These groups arise within specific "scenes": neighborhoods, schools (classes, dorms), workplaces and common leisure activities (soccer, mosque, barbershop, café, online chat-rooms).
...Our interviews with friends of the 9/11 suicide pilots reveal they weren't "recruited" into Qaeda. They were Middle Eastern Arabs isolated in a Moroccan Islamic community in a Hamburg suburb. Seeking friendship, they started hanging out after mosque services, in local restaurants and barbershops, eventually living together when they self-radicalized." Scot Atran, Anthropologist, University of Michigan; Author, In Gods We Trust. http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_9.html
Could we do much worse in terms of selecting for high, or at risk for, self-radicalization at seemingly low, or indeed nonexistent, immigrant numbers, than a student visa program? Am I paranoid to wonder if our masters almost want another 911?
Quote from Jackely"
"As an ardent supporter of Dr. Paul's philosophy I would like to say that I have long been wary of the tendency in some to anoint him as "St Paul".
How would you know that Ron Paul is any less perfect than St. Paul?
Will! Dude! Are there not bigger monsters to slay than the ugly mole on the back of the otherwise beautiful body that is the Ron Paul platform? Can't this kind of public criticism wait until after, you know, he wins?
"Let him stay in the House or go back to delivering babies as he is certainly not of presidential material."
1) Paul is miles above any other candidate for the office of the president. How dare you choose this one small issue to turn your back on the most principled candidate in the race. How about you go back to not making idiotic comments on the internet?
2) Will, this is the kind of malevolence you're promoting when you point out the nearly microscopic difference of opinion between the ideal candidate and Paul. Please don't continue to publish this kind of stuff until after the election. Now is not the time to be doing this - not if you want him to win.
I think it is a pretty good idea to 1) stop bombing and interfering with the internal policies of countries and 2) stopping people from the countries we've bombed and interfered with in the past from coming here for a time to let the anger subside before resuming rational travel. Naturally, the danger with this is that there are always excuses to keep the greater travel restrictions in place. However, this is a much smaller evil than bombing and killing people in their own homes, which seems to be the alternative we have available.
A perfect border fence is neither attainable nor desirable. I agree that the day when we may be fleeing tyranny here may not be the thing of science fiction. However, I do think that allowing a sizable percentage of people who value totalitarian societies into our midst can't help but affect us for the worse. The fact that the people involved are (largely) brown is an unfortunate because of its propaganda value but unimportant to the discussion. One only has to follow the voting patterns of the people flocking here to see that this isn't wave after wave of libertarians.
To be sure, I don't really trust the government with deciding who it wants to add, since it is to its own advantage to add as many dependents as it can, and that may be the ultimate flaw in my argument.
To clarify, Dr. Paul has often stated that the fence was the thing he liked least about the immigration bill.
Here is some more from Paul on the issue:
Immigration ‘Compromise’ Sells Out Our Sovereignty
The more I read your blog, the more I like it and admire your courage and insight and consistency.
I am a Ron Paul supporter, member of a meet up group in Houston, I am involved in the campaign with my wife and three children. We are a Christian homeschooling family. This is the one point of Dr. Paul's views I tend to disagree with: Immigration. And I can't see how it is consistent with the Constitution or with the Biblical worldview, or with the libertarian philosophy. The Founders were in favor of open borders for people and goods, and so is the libertarian philosophy (how can you open your borders for economic goods and close them for one of them: human labor?). The Bible has no stipulation whatsoever against immigration; if anything it encourages immigration as an evangelism tool.
Having said that, I still support Dr. Paul and will work for his campaign, and donate my money and my time. Dr. Paul is not running for God, he is running for President; I don't expect him to be perfect nor 100% in agreement with everything I believe.
God bless you in your efforts.
p.s. I am adding your blog to my Favorites. Somewhere near the top, next to LewRockwell.com and AmericanVision.org.
Bomar: I suspect we'll need to define our terms because, as a preliminary matter, any claim that the Constitution mandates open borders or open immigration strikes me as quite incorrect. Article I, Section 2, uses the term "Citizen of the United States"; AI, S8, specifically grants Congress the Power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"; AI, S9 specifically prohibits "Congress from prohibiting the Migration or Importation of such Personsas any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" until 1808; and there's an extensive line of precedent granting Conress plenary power over immigration law enforcement and extending enforcement authority to the Executive branch. I am not aware of any serious reading of the Constitution or precendent holding against the idea that expelling or excluding aliens is a "fundamental sovereign attribute." Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953). See, also, for a further list of cases, http://www.vdare.com/mann/060731_spp.htm.
The Constitution does not mandate closed borders or an end to immigration either (in fact, only in the 1920s were permanent border patrols implemented-oddly enough during Prohibition). It just says that Congress can establish a Naturalization rule and cannot interfere in state migration laws until 1808.
I say that un-naturalized foreigners should not have political rights. But they should be allowed to live and work in or visit foreign countries without government interference.
Another thing christopher says is that foreigners are capable of destroying America from within. That said, Bush and Cheney have been doing a fine job of that ever since 9/11, eviscerating the Constitution and running up debt. What's the difference between internal destruction by a foreigner or a native born person?
Foreigners are no more dangerous than citizens, and certainly no more dangerous than the State itself.
This is the one area I disagree with Ron Paul. Visas and other permits issued by government are an assault on liberty, and trying to track "who should be here and who shouldn't" only leads to more government in our lives for both outsiders and citizens.
Otherwise, if I was a U.S. citizen, I would vote for him.
Christopher, I agree we need to define our terms. Naturalization and Immigration are two different terms. Immigration has to do with the right to choose where to live and what to work. Naturalization pertains to the right of participation in the political process. Biblical worldview, and the libertarian ideology defend the right of a person to choose where they want to live, and therefore both are against government restrictions on immigration. (By the way, did you know that the first restrictions on immigration in this country were based on race?) Both Biblical worldview and libertarian ideology acknowledge the right of political entities to determine eligibility for political participation, and therefore both see nothing wrong with restrictions and rules on Naturalization.
There is nothing wrong with the Congress determining who has the right to vote. But using the power of the state to restrict movement of people is as socialistic and tyrannical as restricting movement of goods. Free trade and free movement are identical; one can not exist without the other.
So expelling or excluding aliens may be Constitutional, but it ain't right?
Expelling or excluding criminals is both Constitutional and right. Making laws that limit people's freedom to move and settle based solely on their nationality and/or race and/or place of birth is neither Constitutional nor right. "Aliens" does not equal "criminals," just like "citizens" does not equal "law-abiding."
So other than criminals, however we might more specifically define that term, any other exceptions to your proffered general principle that expelling or excluding aliens is neither Constitutional nor right?
Editor in Chief (EC?),
True enough. Glad we can agree.
Red herring. Show me where RP advocates political rights for un-naturalized foreigners (redundant phrasing?). As for movement, it varies. As I said above, some states hassle migrants more than others. In the West, generally, travel, visitation and migration is permitted. But, yeah, sure, if you believe only a world without borders or absolute zero government interference would pass moral muster, then, ok, we're not there yet. Why would it be prudent for us to unilaterally open our borders? What about the free-rider problems that RP speaks of, i.e. the economic issues?
To be exact, I quoted, with approval, Thomas Sowell. Did you read his essay? Is there any doubt that some foreigners are capable of destroying america? How about just damaging? Or substantially damaging? What phrase would you agree to? Why should we accept any damage? So we can feel moral? So no one can accuse us of being racist? As for the difference between foreign and domestic miscreants, it's like the phrase, home is the place where if you go, they have to take you in. If they are not citizens, we don't have to take them in. So why take in dangerous people? Who invited them to the party?
Another red herring. Who said that? But I'll bite: do you say that no foreigners are ever dangerous?
I could nitpick, but here you, me, and RP are probably in vehement agreement. See RP on the Real ID Act.
Do you want me to keep repeating myself?
Here's a homework for you:
What nation has the following words associated with its best known monument:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
What amendment is the Statue of Liberty in?
Look, you seem to take a pretty extreme open borders position and, to address the specific policy point of the post, write that you "can't see how [Ron Paul's immigration position, here containing a de minimus limitation on immigration] is consistent with the Constitution."
Meanwhile Editor in Chief points out that the contradictory policy position --closed borders, isn't mandated by the Constitution either. Of course, RP has never advocated that position either, and I'm not aware of any current presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat, who has, but, ok, sure, nice to establish the far outside parameter on the other end of the issue. At least he's citing the Constitution.
But you, Bomar, cite nothing. So I have to ask again, and again.... Where are open borders mandated in the Constitution? Where does it limit Congress' power to expel or exclude aliens?
Or am I to understand you wish this nation to rely on a selection of unratified poems to determine what is Constitutional?
[Though you may not care for it, my respect for you would grow decidedly if you replied that, no, sadly such ideals are not to be found in the Constitution, but we should pass an amendment to put them into effect. Then we could talk about the Bible, which I suspect you might actually know more about than me.]
Christopher, your reasoning about the Constitution is fallacious: "If the Constitution does not specifically mandate 'open borders,' then it surely gives the Congress the right to close the borders."
Why is this reasoning fallacious? Because it doesn't take in account the fact that the Founders did not think in today's technical terms (open borders vs. closed borders), they thought in terms of Locke and the Common Law, i.e. in terms of natural rights. "Open borders" wouldn't mean anything to them; what would mean something would be the natural right of freedom for the individuals to decide where they want to live, or work, or die.
The Lockean view of civil government - the one espoused by the Founders - is that governments are instituted to protect natural rights, not to bestow those rights. And since the Constitution is a constitution of a civil government, it does not bestow natural rights, it only delineates the limits and the scope of the civil government.
Therefore, the Constitution does not need to specifically mandate "open borders" anymore than it needs to mandate "pursuit of hapiness." All that is necessary is for the Constitution to NOT give the Congress the right to close the borders for non-criminal individuals, and thus limit the power of the Congress to restrict the freedom of individuals to move.
Read again Ammendments IX and X, if you would. They express very well the Lockean spirit of that era: Whatever is not specifically delegated to the government, ot not specifically prohibited to the states or the people, is reserved to the states, or to the people. Meaning: If the Constitution does not specifically delegates to the Congress the power to close the borders, then the right of movement across national borders is reserved to the people.
Actually, I believe my reading is: "The Constitution specifically grants Congress plenary power with regard to Naturalization, Migration, or Importation of persons, this power to vest in 1808." See (again) AI, SS 8-9, and caselaw.
Your cite of Am IX and X, if anything, buttresses my reading. IX of course, is a useful clause meaning, just because we expressly pointed out some of the rights of the people doesn't mean that those are all the rights they have; don't take this to mean these are all the rights people have; in this document we mean to set-up and limit the government, not the people. I take that to mean the people of the US. [Are you forwarding the radical, interesting, novel, and wholly unprecedented reading that the IXth Amendment's use of the word people doesn't just refer to the citizens and people of the States of the 13 colonies, but to every living person on the planet? As in, they all have a right to come here and there's not a thing the federal government can do about it?]
As for Am X, and here let's quote: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Your reading, as applied to the issue at hand: "If the Constitution does not specifically delegates (sic) to the Congress the power to close the borders, then the right of movement across national borders is reserved to the people."
I submit you are mistaken in leaving the word "states" out of your one sentence summary of that one sentence Amendment as that is quite an important word.
My reading of the Xth is that whatever power over their borders and the expelling or excluding of aliens the States had --and I understand they had some power (e.g. recall how many times certain dissident religious groups got bounced around the colonies), it --that power to exclude or expel non state citizens-- was delegated to the US federal government, with vesting of that power to fully commence in 1808.
There are really two migration issues a federal system has to deal with, and here we have to be very careful on terms: From state to state within the system, i.e. New York to Maryland, and from a nation-state outside the system into or out of the system, i.e. Canada to New Hampshire. We could call them, respectively, inter-state migration, and inter-national migration (or, intra-state and intra-national).
With regard to inter-state migration, Chief Justice Taney wrote in in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492:
"For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States."
As quoted in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0383_0745_ZO.html
Here no one's really debating that type of migration, but before we drop it, let's note that:
"Although the Articles of Confederation provided that "the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State," [n14] that right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. [n15] In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution. See Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 97; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 177 (concurring opinion), 181 (concurring opinion); New York v. O'Neill, 359 U.S. 1, 6-8; 12-16 (dissenting opinion)." Id.
Let's move on. The type of migration generally connoted by open borders, and the type addressed, in a particular limited aspect by Mr. Grigg, is inter-national migration.
My argument in summary:
Under English common law, the English crown had plenary power to expell or exclude non-citizens, non-national, i.e. foreign nationals from England and her dominions. Indeed, all nation-states have reserved this plenary power since, and here I'm only guessing, forever.
The colonies under English common law, claimed and maintained, in a manner, this power. E.g. expelling certain classes of dissidents or, heck, Indians. Of course, as subjects of the crown, the colonial powers could not claim this power in an absolute, or plenary sense, but I see no evidence that they claimed more than the crown only to waive it such that anyone from anywhere on the planet had a political right to migrate.
The Articles of Confederation I'm not to sure of. I imagine, as it claimed, at the least, to establish a nation-state, and that nation-state was recognized by such others as France, England and Spain, that by the Articles the federal government also claimed full, plenary powers over inter-national migration (and by implication the power to close the borders), as all the other nation-states. I'd love to be caught out there, but I doubt it.
Then, under the Constution, that power was vested in Congress.
What's the problem? Congress can close the borders, can expel or exclude.
Bomar: "Why is this reasoning fallacious? Because it doesn't take in account the fact that the Founders did not think in today's technical terms (open borders vs. closed borders), they thought in terms of Locke and the Common Law, i.e. in terms of natural rights. "Open borders" wouldn't mean anything to them; what would mean something would be the natural right of freedom for the individuals to decide where they want to live, or work, or die."
Which individuals? The ones already here, or the whole planet.
And what do you mean by technical? You mean writing things that make sense? Reading comprehension? Statutory construction?
Face it Bomar, you're dreaming if you think they didn't write a Constitution --and intentionally too, that permitted the federal government to restrict immigration into the country, or that prevented them from expelling or excluding aliens.
Let's end with some wacky implications of your reading:
British soldiers can't be expelled from New Orleans by Jackson because, you know, they have, as persons, just as much a natural right to be wherever the heck they want to be as you or I.
Japanese marines land in Santa Barbara. Can't even arrest them. Natural right to be wherever their hearts desire.
Typhoid-communicable immigrants from Ireland in mid 19th century. Can we even quarantine them? Would that be racist?
100 million chinese who'd rather give Georgia a shot than Shanghai; can't do nothing about it.
That's you're reading?
PS: See, also, the preemption doctrine.
Three observations about your last post:
1. Full of sarcasm.
2. Focused on technical legal interpretations.
3. Misinterpreting my position by using wrong examples.
1. I guess I can reply with worse sarcasm. I won't. Neither you nor Mr. Grigg deserve it, for different reasons.
2. When I am interpreting the Constitution, I want to understand the philosophy of the Founding Fathers by going back to their time, their circumstances, and their intellectual environment. When you are interpreting the Constitution, you are relying on jurists and judges of later times. Of course, we know how reliable those jurists and judges can be.
Therefore, your comment is misplaced:
"Which individuals? The ones already here, or the whole planet."
Depending on your philosophical presuppositions. On the basis of the Napoleonic ideology of the modern nation-state, with its dichotomy of citizens and non-citizens, it is only the ones that are already here. On the basis of the Lockean philosophy of natural rights, where the civil government is instituted to protect individual rights, it is the whole planet. Which philosophy do you think the Founding Fathers espoused?
Same lack of understanding in the following comment:
"Under English common law, the English crown had plenary power to expell or exclude non-citizens, non-national, i.e. foreign nationals from England and her dominions."
This sentence means as little as the following sentence:
Under today's American law the Federal government has the plenary power to kill its own citizens, or take away their property, or restrict their freedom of movement.
Both sentences are subject to the question: Under what specific circumstances do these two governments have the power to exclude or kill, or take away property, or restrict freedom?
By the way, if I was you, I would refrain from making absolute statements about the Common Law, as if it was a statutory law. It only reveals ignorance about the very nature of the Common Law and its precedential component.
3. Your examples:
British soldiers in New Orleans and Japanese marines in Santa Barbara are there not as individuals, but as agents of an empire assaulting the political order of the American Republic. This simple fact classifies them as criminals.
Typhoid-communicable immigrants from Ireland can be quarantined because they are typhoid-communicable, not because they are from Ireland. So it is not racist to quarantine them, unless you mean the "race" of the typhoid bacterium. Of course, typhoid-communicable Americans should be quarantined too, again, not because they are Americans, but they are typhoid-communicable.
100 million Chinese who'd rather give Georgia a shot than Shanghai? Why do we have to do anything about it? What is wrong about them giving Georgia a shot? And what is unconstitutional about it? We already have more than 200 million English, Scotish, Irish, Italians, etc. who gave America a shot rather than Manchester, Edinburgh, Milan, Dublin etc. New newcomers are less desirable than old newcomers? Was America founded on race, or on ideas? What would the Founders say?
I will see the preemption doctrine when you learn the doctrine of the natural rights. It might help you to understand the Constitution.
Bomar "...when I am interpreting the Constitution I want to understand the philosophy...."
When I want to understand a document, first I try to understand the words.
You go right to philosphy. Do you make agreements with words or do you just grunt and "know". Is your lease or mortgage a crayola drawing?
You're still banging on about some fantasy you have about world government or something.
This was priceless: "When you are interpreting the Constitution, you are relying on jurists and judges of later times."
How dare I read.
But this might be better:
"Depending on your philosophical presuppositions. On the basis of the Napoleonic ideology of the modern nation-state, with its dichotomy of citizens and non-citizens, it is only the ones that are already here. On the basis of the Lockean philosophy of natural rights, where the civil government is instituted to protect individual rights, it is the whole planet. Which philosophy do you think the Founding Fathers espoused?"
Now I love you. You're almost out of the closet, so to speak. So I'll answer: I think the Founders espoused a philosophy that -as a philosphy- applied to all of God's children, i.e. the whole planet.
But they were only setting up a government here, in this particular place, for these particular people. They were not trying to set up a government for the whole planet. How presumptuous.
There's nothing in the document, or precedent (bad nasty precedent), and there never has been, as far as I can tell, that prevents the federal government -our representatives- from limiting immigration or limiting the federal government's power to expel or exclude aliens. And we don't need another amendment to do set up such limits.
You want to make it unlimited, then you start a campaign, get the votes and pass an amendment; have at it. But don't tell me some unratified poetry written at the turn of the century binds this government to maintain open borders as a poltical right extending to all and sundry.
Side note: That we have let more people in and still do just goes to show how great we are --and how much extra space we had after we wiped out the Indians!
Furthermore, recall how humble the Founders were. Recall Washington's farewell address --as long as we're citing unratified rhetoric for philosophical points. Recall JQ Adams. Heck, recall the opening of the Declaration of Independence --"...one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...." One people. What do you suppose that means anyway? One People. Not people. Not all people. Do you really think the Founders proposed this place as a permanent haven for all? Really? Do you think they would have viewed that as prudent? Then why didn't they say so explicitly? You're spouting a turn of the century myth, propaganda really, with you give us your tired and poor wretched stuff.
Or how about, again, (dare I?), the Constitution itself:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Citation omitted (try google), Preamble, emphasis added.
And now, the comedy relief.
British soldiers, Japanese marines, typhoid Maureen: how would we know? To be true to your philosophy, we'd have no border guards, zero control of the border. Why would we? We can't exclude anyone. And after we arrest them, draw up indictments, etc., if some of them wanted to stay, by what right could we expel them? As punishment for a crime? Exile it is? So we do have the right to expel?! Or we'd kill'em all? Killing prisoners of war? Yeah, that's very natural-law-ish.
Let's take the natural philosphy on its face. Nobody has a natural right to be wherever they want. What's your address? Oh, you don't want to give it to me? Don't want me to just drop by and quarter myself on your couch? Why? Because it's your property? And my being there would be trespass.
Ok, fair enough. Here we are in the philosphical debate: These United States are the property of this people, the citizens of the United States. You're declaration of open borders as a natural right is a usurption of my natural right to not associate with others, to exclude others from our shared property (e.g. like when you're wife says why the heck did you tell your in-laws they could stay all week?).
And you're telling me this wasn't part of English common law? Not part of Lockean philosophy? Keep dreaming Bomar. It sounds like a pleasant dream. I used to dream of beautiful women who would waive their natural right to exclude or expel me from their domains. Then I woke up. And grew up.
PS: Still waiting for a cite to those section(s) in the Constitution or precedent holding against the idea that expelling or excluding aliens is a "fundamental sovereign attribute" that vested in the federal government in 1808 at the latest.
Flowing out of natural rights - life, liberty and property - and protected by common law, that liberty enabling yokefellow of natural rights, is my right of association. I am not obligated to allow in, at or near my person or on my property anyone whom I do not want to exclude. If I wish to band with some, whether under a private polity or contract or under a pulbic polity or contrat and exclude others is the business of me and of those with whom I have band. There is absolutely naught contrary in this position with natural rights and common law; in fact, it is one of the ultimate expressions thereof!
Anyone who doesn't want a fence to keep out the illegals is a bleeding heart liberal.
You wrote so much, and all of it in a desperate attempt to NOT understand what I am saying. Fair enough. It is your choice to not understand.
There is no way to understand the words of a document outside of the philosophical context. Words must have meaning and definitions, right? Words do not have absolute meaning by themselves, they need a philosophical context to have a meaning.
Both you and I interpret the words of the Constitution in a philosophical context. I use the context of the 18th century - which happens to be the century of the Founders. You use the context of later times - judges and jurists, some of which have vested interests to misinterpret the Constitution.
The Founders were setting a government that applies to a specific geographical location, a government to apply in practice their views of tne natural rights of man. The Founders were not setting a government to discriminate one individual against another on the basis of their race, nationality or place of birth.
"There's nothing in the document, or precedent (bad nasty precedent), and there never has been, as far as I can tell, that prevents the federal government -our representatives- from limiting immigration or limiting the federal government's power to expel or exclude aliens. And we don't need another amendment to do set up such limits."
True. And there is nothing in the document that specifically prevents federal government officials' power to exclude Americans, for that matter. Or just kill Americans for sport. Or rape their daughters and wives. Then how do we know these joys are denied to Federal agents? The Constitution doesn't specifically allow them to do these things as part of their official obligations.
Same principle with immigration: If the Constitution does not specifically mandate such a thing, then it is forbidden to the Federal government. No need for Ammendment, and I never called for such an ammendment. That is, immigration, i.e. limiting individuals' freedom to move. Naturalization, i.e. the right to political participation, is a different thing.
The remark about Jefferson's "one people": The context of the quote is political bonds between political entities. "One nation" can not be taken to mean collectivistic unity that denies natural rights of individuals. Can "one nation" mean denying the natural rights of Americans? Why can it mean denying the natural rights of foreign-born individuals?
Nothing in my philosophy says we shouldn't have border guards. But again, I don't mind if you misrepresent my position, if that gives you at least some psychological relief.
There is no legal principle that equates the natural right of the individual to property to the government regulation of immigration. Such a legal principle would establish a form of dual ownership on the land - the individual and the Congress - and eventually destroy the individual's right to property. The Congress is not the owner of the land in any sense, it is only defender of the rights of the individuals who own the land. If I want to sell my land to a Chinese, it is not the Congress' business. Its business is only to make sure that neither I nor the buyer are victims of coercion or fraud. And after the Chinese buys my property and becomes its owner - and provided he is not a criminal - the Congress can have no legitimate power to keep the new owner fom accessing his own property. If he wants to settle 100 million Chinese on his newly acquired property, it is his natural right to do it.
Every individual has the natural right to be wherever they want, provided they do not violate the natural rights of other individuals to life, liberty and property. If you believe otherwise, I suggest you move to live in North Korea or Russia. I bet a month or two will be enough to fix your position on this issue.
Bonnieblue, you have the right to exclude people from YOUR property. You do not have the right to use public polity to exclude people from MY property. If I want to invite aliens to my property, or hire them in my business, you can not use the Congress to control my decisions.
p.s. I guess I need to say special thanks for the following "revelation":
"These United States are the property of this people, the citizens of the United States."
Now I don't need to prove the essentially collectivistic character of all immigration restrictions - you did it for me. The political sovereign - whether the King or the Collective Body of Citizens - as the Owner of the land. If this is not collectivism, I wonder what collectivism is. I also wonder whose property these States were before they became the People's Property. I would assume, they were the King's Property. Therefore, the American Revolution might be more properly called The American Theft. "Revolution" is not really the best term for acquiring property without the consent of the original owner.
Yes, exactly. But don't call me a prophet. That's just my understanding of the Constitution and precedent. Legally, and politically, first it was the King's, now it's The People's. For better or worse. Great that we can agree that we live under a somewhat socialistic system. A bit collective, sure, but there you go; no political system is perfect.
If I understand your view, it's that somehow all the property in the US is, or should be, owned by individual persons or loaned to the government for strictly limited public use purposes like roads. Under such a system, it would be left to individuals to, by law, evict or exclude. Also, in the case of streets, such public land would only be collective for a specific public use, so a local official could clear the street not under a theory of eviction but merely on the limited rationale of maintaining traffic flow or something.
Therefore, anyone from anywhere could migrate in, and either find a place on private, individualy property by voluntary contract or agreement --lease, ownership, or suffer the unfortunate consequences of that failure. They couldn't live on the streets or other public property because that would impede the specific public use for which the government took the property, and hence, technically, they wouldn't be evicted from that public property for trespass but for improper use (e.g. sleeping on a highway = causing traffic problems).
That's interesting. Which is why I've been asking you where you find that in the Constitution or precedent. Because I don't think it's there.
Maybe I'm just writing to myself at this point, but I see I've mixed the law on property with the law on citizenship. Both, I take it, evolved from English precedent.
With regard to property law, I'm guessing you would agree that under English law, at the time of the founding, there was no property owned completely free and clear (of the crown, of any encumbrances, taxes, etc. i.e. inalienable). The 13 states were of the 13 colonies which were of the crown. We left the crown. What followed? Where did the Constitution change that idea of ownership? Was the ownership transferred? Was part of it abolished? In the body of the Constitution, I only see the word property in AIV, S3, and it seems to refer to the property of the state or states. (The Congress sahll have Power to dispose of and make needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....) Also, doesn't the Takings clause suggest a continuation of the English monarchical/feudal idea --that the state can take the land; that you don't own it free and clear?
With regard to citizenship, and by implication immigration, I submit we got most of that from England too. For example:
"Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State." State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26., quoted with approval, United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark/Opinion_of_the_Court.
See the similarity with property law? Call it theft if you want; I won't cry. Like I said a couple of days ago, "[S]adly such ideals are not to be found in the Constitution, but we should pass an amendment to put them into effect. Then we could talk about the Bible...."
"Such a legal principle would establish a form of dual ownership on the land - the individual and the Congress - and eventually destroy the individual's right to property."
And so it is. Such is life here in the US. The legal principle was established long ago and hasn't been changed. Do you pay real estate taxes? Why? What's the worst that could happen? They --the government, could take your property away. So the land is not inalienable. Bad news Bomar, and I don't like it either, land in the US is not, in an ultimate legal sense, free and clear. Your home ain't your castle. It's on a sort of loan, legally that is.
And many commentators other than you are upset with the socialistic bent that has, they say, invariably developed as a result of this legal principle combined with majority rule. See, e.g. Kelo. However, they'll admit the fact of the matter: unless you dream it in, there's nothing in the Constitution setting up --or maintaining (how can you maintain something that wasn't there under English law?), your Constitutional understanding.
"Every individual has the natural right to be wherever they want, provided they do not violate the natural rights of other individuals to life, liberty and property."
Similarly, that's great. But I'll ask again, where do you see the Constitution taking away or deleting the sovereign power (formerly of the King, now of the people, by their representatives in federal governmnent, tyranny of the majority though it well may be) to expel or exclude aliens?
Or do you say we are to read in this radical deletion per the rule that contracts/agreements are to be construed against their drafters? And we're to consider subsequent rulings saying, basically, well, gee, of course the federal government has the power to exclude and expel aliens; all sovereign powers have that power; of course we, by our government, have that power --we're to consider those rulings null and void over-extensions, usurptions against the rights of man? Is that it? Do I have you now?
What do you offer in support on this expungement of the sovereign power to expel or exclude? Other than your own summaries of the founders philosophy combined with your factual application? Can you cite one writing by one Founder to this effect? Will you at least admit it's a radical reading? I ask, as I have been asking from the beginning, because I imagine, given such a radical reading --the whole world with a different view, that at least one of the founders --or Locke even, would have mentioned it.
Again, many words, no content.
No, the Constitution does not establish a socialistic society with the political sovereign as the ultimate owner of the land. The Constitution establishes a political entity to be a servant with limited jurisdiction to protect the natural rights of the individuals. As is obvious from the Ammendments, anything that is not specifically mandated to the Federal government - e.g. restriction on the individual's liberty to move - remains a right of the individual.
That's why the Constitution doesn't need to specifically prohibit the Federal government from restricting individual freedoms, just like it doesn't need to specifically prohibit Federal agents from killing, raping and robbing American citizens.
There is no way that the Founders would accept your interpretation of the Constitution as establishing a form of socialism/feudalism. That would nullify the meaning of two-thirds of the Declaration of Independence, and will make the Revolution no more than theft, from a legal perspective.
So the bad news is not for me, but for you. The Founders strictly differentiated between private property and political sovereignty.
If civil government is instituted to protect individual rights, what is the rationale for closing the borders for non-criminal aliens? There is no reason a government should close the borders, except when government bureaucrats desire to establish coercive control over individuals. And I don't see how the Founders - for example, Thomas Paine - would accept the moral validity of such a control. And, of course, Thomas Paine didn't even go to the Bible.
Remember, aliens don't just come to this country and remain isolated. They co-operate with its citizens: Aliens buy property, start businesses, hire employees, get hired themselves, they are vendors and buyers, etc. In short, they enter productive, mutually profitable, voluntary relationships with American citizens. When the Federal government establishes limitation on individual freedom, it violates the rights not only of those aliens, but of their American partners as well. So, just like any other government intervention, it is never a question of "us Americans against them aliens," it is always a questions of "oppressive government against decent people, American or foreign."
When I need construction workers to work on my house, I don't want Americans, I want Mexicans. They work more, and they want less, and they do not worship the gods of the hunting season, and the fishing season, and the Nascar season, and whatever other gods we have in our American pantheon. If I can't have Mexicans, I do the job myself. When the Federal government restrict immigration, it restricts MY freedom to choose who I associate with.
Oh, by the way, keepmout, the word is LIBERTARIAN, not liberal. Yes, I am a bleeding heart libertarian. Just like Thomas Jefferson, I guess. And anyone who wants the government to control the movement of individuals is a bleeding heart statist/socialist. Just like Lenin and Mao.
PS: A1, S9: 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 ....
1. Congress can't prohibit immigration until 1808.
2. States can do whatever they want with regard to immigration.
3. Then, in 1808, by implication, Congress can prohibit immigration. See also, caselaw, the preemption doctrine, etc.
Please explain differing readings.
oops. Add "until 1808" to 2.
And Mr. Grigg, and Bomar too, thank you for indulging me here.
An analogy. The 26th amendment.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age....
1. Neither Congress nor the States can prohibit citizens who are 18 or older from voting on account of their age.
2. Therefore, by implication, Congress and the States can prohibit citizens who are not 18 or older from voting on account of their age.
That is your reading, I know. It is not the reading of the Constitution, and it is not the reading of the Founders. And "implications" are based on what your basic philosophical presuppositions are. So we still need to understand the philosophy under which the Founders operated, in order to know if your "implication" is right or not.
The problem with your "implication" is that it takes a sentence and tries to build a case on it isolated from the rest of the document. "If the sentence says that the Congress can not restrict migration before 1808, then by implication it can do it after 1808." And therefore the Congress can arbitrarily close the borders for whatever reasons it decides.
But that is separating the sentence from the original premise of the whole Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Let me emphasize certain points:
Justice has to do with moral codes and government action against persons who violate those codes. Did the Founders believe that the freedom to move and settle was a crime to deserve punishment or violation of the right to liberty? Can we find a single text of that era that throws a judgment on people who move across borders to improve their situation?
"...promote the general Welfare..."
How is the general Welfare promoted by closing the borders? Who in the 18th century promoted such an idea? The British crown, for instance, which happened to be the military, political and ideological foe of the Founders. Did the Founders see migration as a threat to general Welfare? If yes, where?
"...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
If I make the personal decision to only hire Mexicans to work on my house or in my business, and if the Congress closes the borders for Mexicans or persecutes me for hiring them, how is that securing the blessings of Liberty to me and my children? Did the Founders believe that the government has the unlimited right to tell me who I associate with? Where did they say this? And how does this compare to the ideal of "all men are equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"?
So, whatever your "implication" is, the text of the Constitution clearly does not allow the Congress to pass laws that endager the general Welfare, or Justice, or the Liberty of the American people, and that is according to the Founders' interpretation of Justice, Welfare, and Liberty, not some later interpretation by some judge. Before 1808 or after, the Congress is still under the limitations set on it in the Preamble. And these limitations - when interpreted on the basis of what the Founders believed - do not allow the Congress to arbitrarily close the borders for "undesirables."
So S9 contains a clear implication that Congress may regulate immigration beginning in 1808, but this clear implication in that specific section on the specific topic should be ignored because another section, the pre-amble, contains general principles such as justice, and these general principles have undeniable and clear implications too, among them the idea that the federal government shouldn’t and can’t regulation immigration. Is that it? Or do you say that, e.g, "Bomar cannot do X until Y," DOES NOT necessarilly imply "Bomar CAN DO X when Y."
As a preliminary matter, one argument is that the preamble isn’t actually part of the constitution; it’s just a lovely introduction without legal effect. Note the prefix in the title. Note that the rest of the Constitution consists of numbered Articles, (sub) Sections, and Amendments, whereas the Preamble is unnumbered.
I suspect you would find that argument unsatisfactory. And I actually tend to agree with you, slightly. After all, the Preamble states the purposes or goals of the constitution that follows, and we shouldn’t bar ourselves from considering those purposes and goals when interpreting specific sections.
The problem is that the purposes and goals in the Preamble are general. As a result, deductive reasoning is required to apply them to the specific issues, here immigration. I won’t say the Preamble is vague, because the concepts it provides are clear enough as general concepts go. Nevertheless reasonable people might disagree on what the necessary implications of ideas such as domestic tranquility and general welfare might be as applied to specific cases. The Founders anticipated such disagreements. For instance, why set up deliberative legislative bodies at all? Why not just appoint judges? Or, to be absurd, why write the rest of the Constitution at all; if all the rest of the policy prescriptions follow necessarily, logically, clearly, and irrefutably from the general terms of the preamble, then they could have just agreed to the pre-amble and left it at that. I say “absurd” because I believe your response to that last would be that migration, as a natural right, is on a different order of importance than such things as whether a certain tax should be $1 or $2 or whether Presidents should serve for four or six years. And I certainly agree that immigration is of a different nature and order of importance than those.
But how can we be certain of your view, your application of those general principles? For here in S9 we have a clear implication. Meanwhile there in the Preamble we have general goals and purposes. While the clear implication of S9 stands on its own (in my mind that’s a virtue) the general principles of the Preamble require intermediate logical, deductive steps before reaching a specific policy conclusion. Wouldn’t you agree that where people have to make several deductions to reach a conclusion, that they are more likely to err than where they merely need to make one deduction, here in S9 that of basic reading comprehension? (BTW, recall you do not object to that basic reading of an implication in S9.)
What would be a better rule for Constitution interpretation, looking first to the preamble and then making the several intermediate deductions to apply it to specific policy and legal questions, or looking to the specific, on point sections and then, if they are clear enough on their face, using them, or, if they are not clear, and only if they are not clear, then looking to other sections including the preamble to clear up any ambiquity or lack of clarity. I submit the question, as it were, answers itself. I submit the former lends itself too easily to endless philosophical and historical debate, whereas the latter has the virtue of at least possibly suggesting an immediately clear answer. And I further suggest, that this was the generally accepted, and known by the Founders, practice with regards to the law, drafting agreements, drafting legislation, and drafting Constitutions, i.e. they intended us to look at S9 first, find no ambiguity, and then move on to the conclusion that Congress could regulate immigration after 1808.
It bears repeating: When should you look to other parts of an agreement when a certain section issues a certain answer on a certain, specific issue? "When you don't like the answer," is not a legally sufficient or intellectually honest response. Typically the rule is you only look to other parts to clear up any ambiguity or a lack of clarity.
Finally, for the moment, where would agreement with your argument end? You find the clear meaning in S9 “unconstitutional” as a violation of the general concepts found in the Preamble. What do you mean by calling it unconstitutional? Are you talking about judicial review; that the Supreme Court should read out a section of the Constitution as a nullity? Think of the precedent of that as a rule of Constitutional interpretation. Think of how much more power the Court would have –all they have to do is make a deductive argument from the general concepts offered in the Preamble and they can then strike specific, clear sections of the Constitution. The Founders, in their wisdom, left us a method to change the Constitution. May I suggest you focus more on persuading people to your view of natural rights than categorical statements regarding Constitutional law with regards to immigration.
And I’ll thank you for correcting me away from the rantish aspects of some of my previous remarks.
Your logorrheic post doesn't refute what I said earlier, it rather shows how confused you are when you try to avoid the intent of the Founders and read into the Constitution modern socialistic/nationalistic ideology.
Your "clear implication" clearly implies that the Congress can close the borders to the detriment of Justice, general Welfare and the Blessings of Liberty, established by the Framers as the purpose of this Constitution and of the government of the United States. The real clear implication of the Preamble is that whatever prerogatives are given to the Congress, they are given with a specific purpose, and whenever Congress uses the letter of the Constitution to violate the intent of the Constitution, it acts unconstitutionally. The Congress acts under limitations, and these limitations are established in the Peramble. This principle is established in the Declaration of Independence:
"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
Therefore, your words that the Preamble didn't have any legal effect, are incorrect. The Constitution means nothing apart from its original purpose and intent; using the text in the Constitution to practically deny its purpose and intent outlined in the Preamble is in effect denying the Constitution itself.
So, with this in mind, we need to go back to the Founders and ask them what they thought about immigration and its relation to Justice, Welfare and Liberty. Can you elaborate on the views of the Founders on this issue? Or it is much more convenient to your case to ignore the Founders who actually wrote the Constitution, and keep pushing your "clear implication" as a valid argument?
I'll take logorhhea over sophistry any day. Friends tell me it's part of my charm. Anyway,
"Can you elaborate on the views of the Founders on this issue?"
"Or it is much more convenient to your case to ignore the Founders who actually wrote the Constitution, and keep pushing your "clear implication" as a valid argument?"
Objection. How is it ignoring "the Founders who actually wrote the Constitution" when I talk about a particular section of the Constitution? How is that --reading it-- not a valid method of interpreting the Constitution? Why do we have to go outside the document? Under what circumstances should we go outside the document?
As it is, I just so happen to be pushing the clear implication of a section of the Constitution that specifically address the issue at hand. Call it convenience if you must. I admit it is more convenient to my argument to persist in this line of argument. So what?
Indeed, not coincidentally, convenience is one of my arguments in favor of looking to that section to resolve the issue. As a good general rule, it is more convenient to look first to sections that address specific issues and have your answer on a first reading than to look to more general parts that require deductions before yielding answers. It is also far more convenient to look to those specific sections than to bring in outside sources such as the complete works of the Founders (as interpreted by Bomar?)
(By the way: Has anyone agreed on the exact set of Founders and the canon of their papers? Are the letters of Abigail Adams nee Smith apocrypha? Maybe we should just go with the men who debated and signed the Constitution? Gee, wouldn't it be great if there were one document that all those men were deemed to have drafted, discussed, debated, and comprehended? Even better if, say, they had signed such a document? Imagine if it were fairly comprehensive and, say, covered how to set up a Legislative, an Executive, and a Judicial branch of government?! And, say, also listed, just to be safe, some of the individual rights under such a system? Wow, now that would be like the Canon of the Canon when it came to what they thought were good ideas for setting up the federal government and what powers it should and shouldn't have. Man, if only there were such a document....)
Meanwhile, it's not like the question of who gets to decide what's Constitutional and what's not Constitutional has never come up. I suppose all branches of the government, as well as all citizens, have a duty to determine that, to some extent. What of it? I'm a bad person for pointing to Section 9 and saying: "Hey, this part talks about Migration! Maybe it's got something to do with this issue?!?"
On another note, you seem to find the two words "clear implication" very distasteful. You have any other terms you want to use when a sentence both says one thing explicitly and also says something else implicitly?
Also, you have several times now cast Congress's use of the power I argue it has under Section 9 in a needlessly pejorative way. For instance, you write that under my reading, "Congress can arbitrarily close the borders for whatever reasons it decide." Who said anything about arbitrarily? You mean if Congress passes something --and over a President's veto, it can still be arbitrary? Then of course there's always those jurists, who you say sometimes have their own bad reasons for misreading things, who could, per judicial review, strike down, or at least attempt to strike down, such a ruling.
This too, is simply false: "Therefore, your words that the Preamble didn't have any legal effect, are incorrect." Did I not write, "And I actually tend to agree with you, slightly. After all, the Preamble states the purposes or goals of the constitution that follows, and we shouldn’t bar ourselves from considering those purposes and goals when interpreting specific sections." This taking my words out of context is of a piece with your misreading of the Constitution.
Now my turn with yes or no questions:
Any chance the Founders just made a mistake on Section 9? Forgot to read it? It was a hot day, the humidity was killing them, and they just wanted to get out of there that afternoon? Maybe the subcommittee got out of control? Who knows, maybe a measly little clerk just slipped it in before the signing ceremony? Any chance of something like that?
[And for you sports fans out there, that's 10 Bomar posts and he still can't bring himself to give us a reading of Section 9, let alone quote it! Imagine this guy debating a real estate contract?! Forget the mortgage contingency clause, this thing starts off by saying seller shall sell and convey and purchaser sall purchase the property! Everything else naturally flows from that, and we cannot read other sections in any way that may impede the sale! And just look at the writings and speeches before the contract was signed! Didn't you tell your brother-in-law in an email that you were going to buy/sell the place!)
Bomar, PS: You're right about the "implication" thing. It is distasteful. It's too weak. Please substitute "infer" and its derivatives, e.g. inferrence. For instance, we may infer from Section 9 that Congress has the power to regulate immigration starting in 1808, or, "2. Therefore, by inference, Congress and the States can prohibit citizens who are not 18 or older from voting on account of their agel;" or, section 9 clearly infers that Congress has that power.
Sure you would take lororrhea over sophistry. Logorrhea is so much easier and doesn't require thinking. Any day.
If you were able to go beyond logorrhea in your exercises, you would be able to clearly infer my reading of S9 of what I wrote so far. And this would be:
The Congress has the power to restrict immigration after 1808 only insofar as it agrees with the overall purposes of the government, i.e. Justice, general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty.
So, after 1808 the Congress can legislate immigration rules, for example, to quarantine typhoic-communicable Irish, for the specific purpose to ensure the general Welfare of the people of the United States; or to exclude members of terrorist organisations or dictators around the world, in order to protect Justice. But closing the borders or limiting immigration for whole groups of people just on the basis of their color, place of birth or nationality: How does that promote Justice, Welfare and Liberty? Obviously, when the Congress starts using S9 with your "clear implication," then it has become destructive of these ends.
See, one doesn't have to be logorrheic in order to be logical and consistent. Why don't you give it a try?
"The Congress has the power to restrict immigration after 1808 only insofar as it agrees with the overall purposes of the government, i.e. Justice, general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty."
Was that so hard?
Bomar: "[C]losing the borders or limiting immigration for whole groups of people just on the basis of their color, place of birth or nationality: How does that promote Justice, Welfare and Liberty?"
Ron Paul proposed 'no visa's for students from terrorist nations'.
You might infer from my previous comments, especially where I cite Thomas Sowell, why I believe such a ban would promote the General Welfare. Since we've finally established that, yes, Congress can regulate immigration, I think you owe me more of a rebuttal than a mere allegation that I am a racist.
I made an allegation that you are a racist?
I already said I disagree with Dr. Paul on this point. Both his position on visas for students from terrorist nations, and Thomas Sowell's position in his article define people by their [sometimes perceived] belonging to a collective entity. It might be a surprise to you, but not every Russian is a Communist, not every Arab is a terrorist, and not every American is big, fat and spoiled.
And by the way, Thomas Sowell doesn't explain how his position affects the rights of those American citizens who want to deal with the immigrants that he doesn't like. Again, if I want to hire Mexicans in my business (yes, those Mexicans with grenade launchers, the terrorist Mexicans I mean, the nemesis of our nation), how is my Liberty and Welfare protected, if the Congress decides not to allow me to hire them?
1. On the allegation of racism. It’s insinuated.
2. On defining people by their belonging to a collective entity. So what?
3. On Sowell not explaining. So what?
4. On Suprises. Welcome back!
1. Bomar asks: I made an allegation that you are a racist?
Bomar’s previous comments include:
(By the way, did you know that the first restrictions on immigration in this country were based on race?)
Making laws that limit people's freedom to move and settle based solely on their nationality and/or race and/or place of birth is neither Constitutional nor right. "Aliens" does not equal "criminals," just like "citizens" does not equal "law-abiding."
The Founders were not setting a government to discriminate one individual against another on the basis of their race, nationality or place of birth.
And these limitations - when interpreted on the basis of what the Founders believed - do not allow the Congress to arbitrarily close the borders for "undesirables."
But closing the borders or limiting immigration for whole groups of people just on the basis of their color, place of birth or nationality:
Meanwhile, the civil rights acts, 1866-1964 etc., outlawed discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. These laws were passed to counter racism. Your repeated use of this formula set up an insinuation or suggestion that seemed clear enough to me. But I’ll grant you the benefit of the doubt. We swim in a see of political correctness, so you might be repeatedly invoking, like a mantra, your prayer to the sort of little god of non-discrimination without meaning any offense.
2. As for Sowell, and me for that matter, on defining people, you are implying that one cannot categorize people as members of a collective entity, say, one or the other gender, without necessarily destroying their individual dignity. I deny that. We can usefully define people as members of a collective entity, group, or category and still be fully respectful of their individual human dignity, e.g. Men’s rooms and Women’s rooms.
3. On Sowell not explaining. You mean to your satisfaction? So what? Do you always explain how your positions affect everything all the time? Fully? To everyone’s satisfaction? Really?
Does not super-comprehensively explaining all the results of his policy on everyone invalidate Sowell’s point about some of the possible ill-effects of muslim immigration?
But: "[H]ow is my Liberty and Welfare protected, if the Congress decides not to allow me to hire [Mexican immigrants]?"
Maybe they're not. Maybe you go your whole life having your Liberty and Welfare impinged upon by Congressional action. Was it directed at you personally, individually, as a bill of attainder? Now that would definitely be an offense against your individual, human dignity; that would be a surely illegitimate governmental action. Meanwhile we have to live in the world. Living in that collective entity known as a marriage might require some compromise; living in that collective entity known as a family might require some compromise; living in those collective entities known as a town, or a county, or a city or a community or a region or a nation or a creed or a culture might require some compromise. Why consistently try to blow up all Congressional action into a Constitutional crisis? Why not, even just for the sake of argument, address RP's immigration proposals on prudential grounds? Would it be too dangerous to acknowledge some benefits? You could always still come back around and say, yes, but we can't let the ends justify the means.
As for the main point, it's simple: It just might be in the self-interest of the US to preserve our particular culture because that particular culture might deserve some of the credit for our Liberty and Welfare.
Finally, surprises. Russians, Arabs, Americans. Great stuff! Glad to have the fun-loving Bomar back! I liked that one a few days ago about how horrible it would be to live in Russia these days. By the way, they call that city in their north St. Petersburg again; changed it from Leningrad a few years ago.
Dear Mr. Grigg,
I have read several of your excellent, insightful articles. Perhaps I should read this one through just one more time, but I think the gist of it was that this ad stating his position on immigration does not sound like the Ron Paul we all know and admire?
And yet I don't see why he would "pander" about *any* issue when, frankly, everything I've ever heard him say is a direct kick to the teeth of the status quo; he practically has Tourette's Syndrome when it comes to telling the truth. I believe you even said in another article that Ron Paul has a backbone made of steel.
I confess I haven't seen the ad, but I believe Ron Paul is simply so brilliant and right on so many other important issues, I really don't see any discrepancy here nor will this change the way I think about him.
1. OK, I obviously made an allegation that you are a racist. I agree, anyone who wants to limit individuals' right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness on the basis of race, nationality or place of birth, must be a racist.
2. Therefore, since defining people by their belonging to a collective entity is not a big deal, and there is nothing morally wrong with that, you must be a racist, since you agree with those racists who want to close the borders to keep the "American race" pure. You shouldn't have any problem if I associate you with that group.
Not to mention that it gives ideological justification to those around the world who want to kill or rob individual Americans for being born in America. Can we actually blame them for doing that?
3. Yep, you are right, nothing wrong with that. Sowell wants to use the Federal government to impose his own wishes and desires upon other American citizens who want to deal with non-criminal aliens. So what? What is wrong with using political force to control who the individuals decide to associate with?
4. Very thoughtful remark on "surprises." Were you trying to say something?
Oh, and I appreciate your comparison of the collective entity of the nation with the collective entity of the marriage. Of course, of course, we are children and the Congress is our Mother, and we shouldn't be given too much liberty to decide who we play with, because it will not be good for the Familia, I mean the Nation.
Post a Comment