Comments on Pro Libertate: Ron Paul's Immigration Misfire

Oh, and I appreciate your comparison of the collec...

2008-01-18T04:07:00.000-07:00

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.

Christopher:1. OK, I obviously made an allegation ...

2008-01-18T03:57:00.000-07:00

Christopher:

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?

Dear Mr. Grigg,I have read several of your excelle...

2008-01-17T18:52:00.000-07:00

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. On the allegation of racism. It’s insinuated.2...

2008-01-17T17:54:00.000-07:00

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.

I made an allegation that you are a racist?I alrea...

2008-01-17T03:57:00.000-07:00

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?

Bomar: "[C]losing the borders or limiting immigrat...

2008-01-14T07:04:00.000-07:00

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.

"The Congress has the power to restrict immigratio...

2008-01-14T06:57:00.000-07:00

"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?

Sure you would take lororrhea over sophistry. Logo...

2008-01-14T03:35:00.000-07:00

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?

I'll take logorhhea over sophistry any day. Frien...

2008-01-13T21:53:00.000-07:00

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?"

Yes.

"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.

Your logorrheic post doesn't refute what I said ea...

2008-01-12T12:55:00.000-07:00

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?

So S9 contains a clear implication that Congress m...

2008-01-12T09:35:00.000-07:00

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.

That is your reading, I know. It is not the readin...

2008-01-11T21:59:00.000-07:00

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:

"...establish Justice..."

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."

An analogy. The 26th amendment.The right of citiz...

2008-01-11T14:14:00.000-07:00

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....

My reading:

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.

oops. Add "until 1808" to 2. And Mr. Grigg, and B...

2008-01-10T21:27:00.000-07:00

oops. Add "until 1808" to 2.

And Mr. Grigg, and Bomar too, thank you for indulging me here.

PS: A1, S9: The Migration or Importation of such P...

2008-01-10T20:22:00.000-07:00

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 [1808]....
=
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.

Again, many words, no content.No, the Constitution...

2008-01-10T18:56:00.000-07:00

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.

"Such a legal principle would establish a form of ...

2008-01-10T13:34:00.000-07:00

"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.

Yes, exactly. But don't call me a prophet. That'...

2008-01-10T10:33:00.000-07:00

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...."

p.s. I guess I need to say special thanks for the ...

2008-01-10T05:18:00.000-07:00

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.

Christopher,You wrote so much, and all of it in a ...

2008-01-09T21:18:00.000-07:00

Christopher,

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.

Anyone who doesn't want a fence to keep out the il...

2008-01-09T21:07:00.000-07:00

Anyone who doesn't want a fence to keep out the illegals is a bleeding heart liberal.

Flowing out of natural rights - life, liberty and ...

2008-01-09T14:48:00.000-07:00

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!

PS: Still waiting for a cite to those section(s) i...

2008-01-09T13:53:00.000-07:00

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.

***tapping foot***

Bomar "...when I am interpreting the Constitution ...

2008-01-09T11:25:00.000-07:00

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.

Three observations about your last post:1. Full of...

2008-01-08T21:38:00.000-07:00

Three observations about your last post:

1. Full of sarcasm.
2. Focused on technical legal interpretations.
3. Misinterpreting my position by using wrong examples.

My reply:

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.