|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 21, 2014 23:38:05 GMT
Constitutional jurisprudence should not be divided into "progressive" and "conservative" interpretations, as if we were merely considering policy preferences. The real categories, instead, are Living Constitution Theory and Originalism. And I fit quite nicely into the latter.
It is literally impossible to use "Originalism" as a criteria as no one really knows what was going on in the minds of those that ratified the Constitution or the amendments to it. We can certianly quote the "Federalist Papers" for example but that only represented a single group and not all political opinion of the time. It would be like saying today that only the Republican opinion applied.
What we do know was the exact verbiage of what was ratified. We can either: A - hold to a very strict or "conservative" interpretation (e.g. the 2nd Amendment only refers to a militia as being a necessity for the person to keep and bear arms) or, ; B - we can look at other components of the Constitution (e.g. the protections of the unenumerated Rights of the Person) as well as historical legal precendent and common law that could be applicable which is a more liberal or "progressive" interpretation.
Basically the Constitution needs to be addressed like any "contract" where often times specifics not expressed in the contract are applicable to the contract (i.e. common law and/or historical legal precedent) and where all of the conditions of the contract can affect other clauses of the contract. This argues against a "strict" (conservative) interpretation limited to only what is explicitly stated in a single clause or amendment but instead embraces a much more "liberal" (progressive) interpretation of the Constitution.
The "Living Constitutional Theory" attempts to imply that which is not supported by either enumeration or by reference is Constitutional. Both of us would disagree with that position. The "Living Constitution Theory" is not based upon contract law.
Once agian the 9th Amendment is unquestionably the most important Amendment in the Constitution and the founders and authors of the Constitution knew that. They had no desire to try to enumerate all of the Rights of the Person as they were not so arrogant as to believe they could do so. They left that up to future generations to established based upon a greater understanding of Inalienable Rights that would grow with time. They expected us to understand the Inalienable Rights of the Person more than they did. They signaled the 'beginning' and not the 'end' of this pursuit for America. It falls to us to further define and understand the Inalienable Rights of the Person and to protect them. That is the mandate handed down to us and every subsequent generation from the founders of America.
That alone makes it exciting to be an American. It's not about "the past" but instead it's about "the future" as we have the responsibility for today and tomorrow delegated to us by the Founders. They gave us the future and not the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 22, 2014 19:25:53 GMT
Constitutional jurisprudence should not be divided into "progressive" and "conservative" interpretations, as if we were merely considering policy preferences. The real categories, instead, are Living Constitution Theory and Originalism. And I fit quite nicely into the latter.
It is literally impossible to use "Originalism" as a criteria as no one really knows what was going on in the minds of those that ratified the Constitution or the amendments to it. We can certianly quote the "Federalist Papers" for example but that only represented a single group and not all political opinion of the time. It would be like saying today that only the Republican opinion applied.
What we do know was the exact verbiage of what was ratified. We can either: A - hold to a very strict or "conservative" interpretation (e.g. the 2nd Amendment only refers to a militia as being a necessity for the person to keep and bear arms) or, ; B - we can look at other components of the Constitution (e.g. the protections of the unenumerated Rights of the Person) as well as historical legal precendent and common law that could be applicable which is a more liberal or "progressive" interpretation.
Basically the Constitution needs to be addressed like any "contract" where often times specifics not expressed in the contract are applicable to the contract (i.e. common law and/or historical legal precedent) and where all of the conditions of the contract can affect other clauses of the contract. This argues against a "strict" (conservative) interpretation limited to only what is explicitly stated in a single clause or amendment but instead embraces a much more "liberal" (progressive) interpretation of the Constitution.
The "Living Constitutional Theory" attempts to imply that which is not supported by either enumeration or by reference is Constitutional. Both of us would disagree with that position. The "Living Constitution Theory" is not based upon contract law.
Once agian the 9th Amendment is unquestionably the most important Amendment in the Constitution and the founders and authors of the Constitution knew that. They had no desire to try to enumerate all of the Rights of the Person as they were not so arrogant as to believe they could do so. They left that up to future generations to established based upon a greater understanding of Inalienable Rights that would grow with time. They expected us to understand the Inalienable Rights of the Person more than they did. They signaled the 'beginning' and not the 'end' of this pursuit for America. It falls to us to further define and understand the Inalienable Rights of the Person and to protect them. That is the mandate handed down to us and every subsequent generation from the founders of America.
That alone makes it exciting to be an American. It's not about "the past" but instead it's about "the future" as we have the responsibility for today and tomorrow delegated to us by the Founders. They gave us the future and not the past.
With this, you have breezily brushed aside the Originalism of such substantive thinkers as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and intoned that they simply do not know what they are talking about. And to suggest that the Founders left it to "future generations" to determine what is constitutional doctrine, without the benefit of constitutional amendments (or, alternatively, a second constitutional convention), simply does not comport with my understanding of the Founders' intentions. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 23, 2014 13:43:52 GMT
With this, you have breezily brushed aside the Originalism of such substantive thinkers as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and intoned that they simply do not know what they are talking about. And to suggest that the Founders left it to "future generations" to determine what is constitutional doctrine, without the benefit of constitutional amendments (or, alternatively, a second constitutional convention), simply does not comport with my understanding of the Founders' intentions.
We can see understand the Founder's intentions by simply looking at the 9th Amendment. The founders were no so arrogant to believe that they knew all of the Inalienable Rights of the Person. Had they known all of the Inalienable Rights of the Person they would have listed them in the Constitution but they understood that this was pragmatically impossible for them to do and if they failed to provide for the unenumerated Rights of the Person in the US Constitution it would inherently lead to the government violating them. As Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights argued:
There is something that concerns me deeply today. The "Founders" correctly believed that the Inalienable Rights of the Person were not a privilege granted by government to the citizens but instead where inherent in all persons. When we address the first Eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights they protect our Inalienable Rights often withour enumeration of the actual Right and those Rights are inherent in ALL persons regardless of whether they are US citizens or not. Our government is prohibited from violating them even though they are not enumerated. Those that argued that the US Government did not have to comply with the protections of the Inalienable Rights of the Person when it came to "foreigners" subjected to the authority of the United States (e.g. suspected terrorists) where fundamentally denying the fact that the "Person has Inalienable Rights" that our government is prohibited from violating. They expressed the opinion that the Inalienable Rights of the Person were a privilege granted by United States government to US citizens alone and that is juxtaposed to the intent of the Founders (specifically Madison) in the adoption of the Bill of Rights and the 9th Amendment.
We don't even protect the Inalienable Rights that the founderd did express but were not enumerated. For example Madison, Washington and Jefferson (as well as others) believed that a person had an inalienable right of immigration for peaceful purposes but we violate that unenumerated Right with the "quota system" in our immigration laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 23, 2014 21:04:17 GMT
With this, you have breezily brushed aside the Originalism of such substantive thinkers as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and intoned that they simply do not know what they are talking about. And to suggest that the Founders left it to "future generations" to determine what is constitutional doctrine, without the benefit of constitutional amendments (or, alternatively, a second constitutional convention), simply does not comport with my understanding of the Founders' intentions.
We can see understand the Founder's intentions by simply looking at the 9th Amendment. The founders were no so arrogant to believe that they knew all of the Inalienable Rights of the Person. Had they known all of the Inalienable Rights of the Person they would have listed them in the Constitution but they understood that this was pragmatically impossible for them to do and if they failed to provide for the unenumerated Rights of the Person in the US Constitution it would inherently lead to the government violating them. As Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights argued:
There is something that concerns me deeply today. The "Founders" correctly believed that the Inalienable Rights of the Person were not a privilege granted by government to the citizens but instead where inherent in all persons. When we address the first Eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights they protect our Inalienable Rights often withour enumeration of the actual Right and those Rights are inherent in ALL persons regardless of whether they are US citizens or not. Our government is prohibited from violating them even though they are not enumerated. Those that argued that the US Government did not have to comply with the protections of the Inalienable Rights of the Person when it came to "foreigners" subjected to the authority of the United States (e.g. suspected terrorists) where fundamentally denying the fact that the "Person has Inalienable Rights" that our government is prohibited from violating. They expressed the opinion that the Inalienable Rights of the Person were a privilege granted by United States government to US citizens alone and that is juxtaposed to the intent of the Founders (specifically Madison) in the adoption of the Bill of Rights and the 9th Amendment.
We don't even protect the Inalienable Rights that the founderd did express but were not enumerated. For example Madison, Washington and Jefferson (as well as others) believed that a person had an inalienable right of immigration for peaceful purposes but we violate that unenumerated Right with the "quota system" in our immigration laws.
The once-raging argument between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalsits was won by the former, but with an important concession to the latter: It would be made clear that citizens' rights were not circumscribed by those enumerated in the US Constitution. Of course the Bill of Rights--and, by extension, the entire US Constitution--applies only to American citizens. As a rough analogy, suppose that you work for the Ajax Widget Company, and you show up to work five minutes late one day. Now suppose that a different company, the Acme Broom Factory, has a policy stating that any person coming to work late, without a sufficient excuse, will be automatically terminated. Do you really believe that the latter's policy should govern the situation at hand--even though you work for the former? As regarding the matter of immigration: In the latter part of the eighteenth century--during the Age of Discovery--it made perfectly good sense for people to be allowed to travel, unfettered, from one land to another. Nowadays, though, not so much. The US would simply be overrun by immigrants--many more would immigrate to the US than would emigrate from the US--in a hugely wicked zero-sum game. And most of these (just judging from experience) would probably be low-skill laborers--not CPAs and neurosurgeons. Our economy could simply not support such a system, without a vast expansion of the welfare state. (Oh, here's a thought: Why shouldn't--or why couldn't--Mexico, which remains the chief source of illegal immigration, upgrade its economic structure so that the US would no longer act as a magnet for those wishing to better their own lives?) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 24, 2014 11:25:30 GMT
The once-raging argument between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalsits was won by the former, but with an important concession to the latter: It would be made clear that citizens' rights were not circumscribed by those enumerated in the US Constitution. Of course the Bill of Rights--and, by extension, the entire US Constitution--applies only to American citizens.
The United States Constitution applies to Government in the United States and not just to American citizens. The Rights of the Person, regardless of citizenship, extend to all persons although US citizens are granted certain "privileges and immunities" under the law (ref 14th Amendment).
For example the 8th Amendment prohibits our government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or commiting acts of cruel and unusual punishment. It doesn't express any Rights of a Person but instead is a blanket prohibition on our government related to any "person" that it subjects to it's authority. That prohibition imposed by the US Constitution on our government applies to anyone, citizen or not, that is subjected to the authority of our government anywhere our government exercises it's authority. That Constitutional prohibition does not apply to foreign governments but does apply to the US government at all times and in all circumstances where our government exercises it's authority.
The 9th Amendment applies to "all persons" subjected to the authority of the US government and US laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 24, 2014 19:26:04 GMT
The once-raging argument between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalsits was won by the former, but with an important concession to the latter: It would be made clear that citizens' rights were not circumscribed by those enumerated in the US Constitution. Of course the Bill of Rights--and, by extension, the entire US Constitution--applies only to American citizens.
The United States Constitution applies to Government in the United States and not just to American citizens. The Rights of the Person, regardless of citizenship, extend to all persons although US citizens are granted certain "privileges and immunities" under the law (ref 14th Amendment).
For example the 8th Amendment prohibits our government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or commiting acts of cruel and unusual punishment. It doesn't express any Rights of a Person but instead is a blanket prohibition on our government related to any "person" that it subjects to it's authority. That prohibition imposed by the US Constitution on our government applies to anyone, citizen or not, that is subjected to the authority of our government anywhere our government exercises it's authority. That Constitutional prohibition does not apply to foreign governments but does apply to the US government at all times and in all circumstances where our government exercises it's authority.
The 9th Amendment applies to "all persons" subjected to the authority of the US government and US laws.
You appear to agree, here, with the left-leaning constitutional scholar, Laurene Tribe, who once postulated that "[t]he ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution." By the way, the Ninth Amendment is rather concise; it reads as follows: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you really suppose that the Framers meant to include non-citizens among "the people" to whom they referred? |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 24, 2014 19:29:18 GMT
The once-raging argument between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalsits was won by the former, but with an important concession to the latter: It would be made clear that citizens' rights were not circumscribed by those enumerated in the US Constitution. Of course the Bill of Rights--and, by extension, the entire US Constitution--applies only to American citizens.
The United States Constitution applies to Government in the United States and not just to American citizens. The Rights of the Person, regardless of citizenship, extend to all persons although US citizens are granted certain "privileges and immunities" under the law (ref 14th Amendment).
For example the 8th Amendment prohibits our government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or commiting acts of cruel and unusual punishment. It doesn't express any Rights of a Person but instead is a blanket prohibition on our government related to any "person" that it subjects to it's authority. That prohibition imposed by the US Constitution on our government applies to anyone, citizen or not, that is subjected to the authority of our government anywhere our government exercises it's authority. That Constitutional prohibition does not apply to foreign governments but does apply to the US government at all times and in all circumstances where our government exercises it's authority.
The 9th Amendment applies to "all persons" subjected to the authority of the US government and US laws.
You appear to agree, here, with the left-leaning constitutional scholar, Laurence Tribe, who once postulated that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Ninth Amendment is really quite concise; it reads as follows: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you really suppose that the Framers meant to include non-citizens among "the people" to whom they referred here? Note: This is essentially just a duplicate of another post, which I attempted to reconstruct from memory, as the message I received when I made the first post appeared to indicate that it did not take. However, it apparently did take. So please pardon the redundancy. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 25, 2014 11:53:01 GMT
You appear to agree, here, with the left-leaning constitutional scholar, Laurene Tribe, who once postulated that "[t]he ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution." By the way, the Ninth Amendment is rather concise; it reads as follows: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you really suppose that the Framers meant to include non-citizens among "the people" to whom they referred?
Absolutely! The Founders were very articulate and when they addressed the Rights of the Person in the Declaration of Independence it was a universal declaration that was not unique to American politics or government. The Rights of the Person exist outside the authority of government and they apply to all persons (people) and the US Constitution is very specific when it addressed the Rights of the Person (or the protections of the Rights of the Person imposed by Constitutional limitations or prohibitions like the 8th Amendment). The 14th Amendment, albeit created long after the Founders had died, also reflects the difference as it notes that citizenship does provide certain privileges and immunities it does not establish any Rights of the Person. The government cannot create a Right of the Person. It can protect a Right of the Person or it can violate a Right of the Person but that is all it can do.
Government is NOT the Source of Rights so Laurene Tribe is absolutely correct. All Inalienable Rights are inherent it the Person and are never created by government fiat. That's a primary problem I see with a country like Great Britian. Great Britian doesn't have a Constitution extablishes the Rights of the Person but instead uses fiat law to establishe the "Rights" of the person. That which granted by government fiat can also be taken away by government fiat.
The United States, to my knowledge, is the only nation that recognizes that the Rights of the Person are inherent in the Person are not established by government fiat and that is what the 9th Amendment establishes.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 25, 2014 17:14:45 GMT
You appear to agree, here, with the left-leaning constitutional scholar, Laurene Tribe, who once postulated that "[t]he ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution." By the way, the Ninth Amendment is rather concise; it reads as follows: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you really suppose that the Framers meant to include non-citizens among "the people" to whom they referred?
Absolutely! The Founders were very articulate and when they addressed the Rights of the Person in the Declaration of Independence it was a universal declaration that was not unique to American politics or government. The Rights of the Person exist outside the authority of government and they apply to all persons (people) and the US Constitution is very specific when it addressed the Rights of the Person (or the protections of the Rights of the Person imposed by Constitutional limitations or prohibitions like the 8th Amendment). The 14th Amendment, albeit created long after the Founders had died, also reflects the difference as it notes that citizenship does provide certain privileges and immunities it does not establish any Rights of the Person. The government cannot create a Right of the Person. It can protect a Right of the Person or it can violate a Right of the Person but that is all it can do.
Government is NOT the Source of Rights so Laurene Tribe is absolutely correct. All Inalienable Rights are inherent it the Person and are never created by government fiat. That's a primary problem I see with a country like Great Britian. Great Britian doesn't have a Constitution extablishes the Rights of the Person but instead uses fiat law to establishe the "Rights" of the person. That which granted by government fiat can also be taken away by government fiat.
The United States, to my knowledge, is the only nation that recognizes that the Rights of the Person are inherent in the Person are not established by government fiat and that is what the 9th Amendment establishes.
Well. we do have one important point of agreement, viz.: Rights are inherent (i.e. "natural rights"), rather than the (benevolent?) gift of the government; for, if they were the latter, they could rather easily "be taken away by government fiat."
As regarding the rest of your post, however, we will probably just have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 26, 2014 10:53:56 GMT
Absolutely! The Founders were very articulate and when they addressed the Rights of the Person in the Declaration of Independence it was a universal declaration that was not unique to American politics or government. The Rights of the Person exist outside the authority of government and they apply to all persons (people) and the US Constitution is very specific when it addressed the Rights of the Person (or the protections of the Rights of the Person imposed by Constitutional limitations or prohibitions like the 8th Amendment). The 14th Amendment, albeit created long after the Founders had died, also reflects the difference as it notes that citizenship does provide certain privileges and immunities it does not establish any Rights of the Person. The government cannot create a Right of the Person. It can protect a Right of the Person or it can violate a Right of the Person but that is all it can do.
Government is NOT the Source of Rights so Laurene Tribe is absolutely correct. All Inalienable Rights are inherent it the Person and are never created by government fiat. That's a primary problem I see with a country like Great Britian. Great Britian doesn't have a Constitution extablishes the Rights of the Person but instead uses fiat law to establishe the "Rights" of the person. That which granted by government fiat can also be taken away by government fiat.
The United States, to my knowledge, is the only nation that recognizes that the Rights of the Person are inherent in the Person are not established by government fiat and that is what the 9th Amendment establishes.
Well. we do have one important point of agreement, viz.: Rights are inherent (i.e. "natural rights"), rather than the (benevolent?) gift of the government; for, if they were the latter, they could rather easily "be taken away by government fiat."
As regarding the rest of your post, however, we will probably just have to agree to disagree.
If you agree that Inalienable Rights are inherent in the person and not granted by government fiat then what exactly in my post are you disagreeing with?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 26, 2014 20:33:58 GMT
Well. we do have one important point of agreement, viz.: Rights are inherent (i.e. "natural rights"), rather than the (benevolent?) gift of the government; for, if they were the latter, they could rather easily "be taken away by government fiat."
As regarding the rest of your post, however, we will probably just have to agree to disagree.
If you agree that Inalienable Rights are inherent in the person and not granted by government fiat then what exactly in my post are you disagreeing with?
I disagree with your core assertion that these "inalienable rights" include the right (?) of non-citizens to immigrate wherever and whenever they wish, free of any government constraint. But I strongly suspect that we shall never agree on this issue. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 27, 2014 10:40:14 GMT
I disagree with your core assertion that these "inalienable rights" include the right (?) of non-citizens to immigrate wherever and whenever they wish, free of any government constraint. But I strongly suspect that we shall never agree on this issue.
Then you're not disagreeing with me but instead you're disagreeing with the likes of George Washington, James Madison, and specifically Thomas Jefferson that all believed the person had any Inalienable Right of Immigration across political boundarys for peaceful purposes. All believed in the Right of Liberty of the Person to go anywhere they wanted to go for peaceful purposes.
Thomas Jefferson was quite eloquent in addressing immigration from one political entity to another in referring to it as "expatriation" (i..e. leaving one country and relocationg to another country).
In short, if the "law" does not allow or prohibits the person to relocate from one country to another Jefferson argues that the "person" has the "right to act" regardless of the law. Basically Jefferson is stating that the "illegal" immigrants have the right to do so because our laws are violating their Right of Expatriation (Inalienable Right of Liberty). Jefferson did warn against allowing immigration for those that would do so for nefarious reason but believed that a person that would come here for peaceful purposes should never be denied admission into the United States.
Since "Inalienable Rights" exist outside of government then think about it from this perspective. Assume "no government" and there would be nothing to prevent a person from exercising their Right of Liberty to move from Mexico City to Denver CO. With the creation of government that prohibits a person from exercising this Inalienable Right of Liberty to relocate from Mexico City to Denver CO for peaceful purposes it is a fundamental violation of the Rights of the Person.
As Jefferson warned we must guard against those that would come here for nefarious purposes and also held that our government exists to protect the Inalienable Rights of all Persons subjected to it's authority. Government should not to violate them but a compelling argument can be made that would justify the limitation upon a person's Freedom to Exercise their Right of Liberty by immigration if it's for nefarous purposes. So we can rationalize the prohibitions agianst immigration for those that would come here to commit crimes such as murder, robbery, or acts of terrorism or to overthrow our government. We cannot justify prohibiting someone from coming here to work for a living.
So you're not disagreeing with me but instead you're disagreeing with the founders of America and most notably you're disagreeing with Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 28, 2014 0:14:04 GMT
I disagree with your core assertion that these "inalienable rights" include the right (?) of non-citizens to immigrate wherever and whenever they wish, free of any government constraint. But I strongly suspect that we shall never agree on this issue.
Then you're not disagreeing with me but instead you're disagreeing with the likes of George Washington, James Madison, and specifically Thomas Jefferson that all believed the person had any Inalienable Right of Immigration across political boundarys for peaceful purposes. All believed in the Right of Liberty of the Person to go anywhere they wanted to go for peaceful purposes.
Thomas Jefferson was quite eloquent in addressing immigration from one political entity to another in referring to it as "expatriation" (i..e. leaving one country and relocationg to another country).
In short, if the "law" does not allow or prohibits the person to relocate from one country to another Jefferson argues that the "person" has the "right to act" regardless of the law. Basically Jefferson is stating that the "illegal" immigrants have the right to do so because our laws are violating their Right of Expatriation (Inalienable Right of Liberty). Jefferson did warn against allowing immigration for those that would do so for nefarious reason but believed that a person that would come here for peaceful purposes should never be denied admission into the United States.
Since "Inalienable Rights" exist outside of government then think about it from this perspective. Assume "no government" and there would be nothing to prevent a person from exercising their Right of Liberty to move from Mexico City to Denver CO. With the creation of government that prohibits a person from exercising this Inalienable Right of Liberty to relocate from Mexico City to Denver CO for peaceful purposes it is a fundamental violation of the Rights of the Person.
As Jefferson warned we must guard against those that would come here for nefarious purposes and also held that our government exists to protect the Inalienable Rights of all Persons subjected to it's authority. Government should not to violate them but a compelling argument can be made that would justify the limitation upon a person's Freedom to Exercise their Right of Liberty by immigration if it's for nefarous purposes. So we can rationalize the prohibitions agianst immigration for those that would come here to commit crimes such as murder, robbery, or acts of terrorism or to overthrow our government. We cannot justify prohibiting someone from coming here to work for a living.
So you're not disagreeing with me but instead you're disagreeing with the founders of America and most notably you're disagreeing with Thomas Jefferson.
As I have previously noted (notwithstanding the fact that you have blithely ignored it), there is a vast difference between what was reasonable during the Age of Discovery and what is reasonable nowadays, with regard to immigration. By the way, I noticed that your example was of a person's migrating from Mexico City to Denver--not the other way around. But this begs the question--which I have also posed previously-- Why should we consider Mexico inherently incapable of having a robust economy, thereby resulting in America's being no more of a magnet for Mexican citizens than Mexico is for American citizens? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 28, 2014 13:58:26 GMT
As I have previously noted (notwithstanding the fact that you have blithely ignored it), there is a vast difference between what was reasonable during the Age of and what is reasonable nowadays, with regard to immigration. By the way, I noticed that your example was of a person's migrating from Mexico City to Denver--not the other way around. But this begs the question--which I have also posed previously-- Why should we consider Mexico inherently incapable of having a robust economy, thereby resulting in America's being no more of a magnet for Mexican citizens than Mexico is for American citizens?
There has been no difference in the Inalienable Rights of the Person from 1776 and today and the Right of Expatriation (immigration) that the founders of America expressed and supported has not changed one iota. Your claim that this Right no longer exists is falling on deaf ears.
Nothing has changed with regards to the Right of Liberty that establishes a fundamental Right of Immigration between 1776 and today.
Those that would come to the United States for nefarious criminal purposes should still be denied entrance while those that would come here for peaceful purposes such as work that expands our economic growth should be allowed to freely immigrate. Remember a simple fact that for every 100 of the lowest paid immigrants to America they create 183 more American jobs that typically pay much higher. More immigrant labor results in far more American jobs.
news.yahoo.com/open-immigration-could-double-global-economy-162100675.html
Without government a person would certainly have the Right of Liberty to walk from either Mexico City to Denver or from Denver to Mexico City.
Why would we even consider what Mexico offers when we, the United States, benefit from the fact that the Mexican economy isn't as good as the US economy? As noted above we benefit from immigrant labor as it creates more (and higher paying) American jobs than the immigrants fill.
Here is a fundamental question for you.
Should an Inalienable Right of the Person (e.g. the Right of Liberty) be violated for economic gain by another person?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 28, 2014 19:53:04 GMT
As I have previously noted (notwithstanding the fact that you have blithely ignored it), there is a vast difference between what was reasonable during the Age of and what is reasonable nowadays, with regard to immigration. By the way, I noticed that your example was of a person's migrating from Mexico City to Denver--not the other way around. But this begs the question--which I have also posed previously-- Why should we consider Mexico inherently incapable of having a robust economy, thereby resulting in America's being no more of a magnet for Mexican citizens than Mexico is for American citizens?
There has been no difference in the Inalienable Rights of the Person from 1776 and today and the Right of Expatriation (immigration) that the founders of America expressed and supported has not changed one iota. Your claim that this Right no longer exists is falling on deaf ears.
Nothing has changed with regards to the Right of Liberty that establishes a fundamental Right of Immigration between 1776 and today.
Those that would come to the United States for nefarious criminal purposes should still be denied entrance while those that would come here for peaceful purposes such as work that expands our economic growth should be allowed to freely immigrate. Remember a simple fact that for every 100 of the lowest paid immigrants to America they create 183 more American jobs that typically pay much higher. More immigrant labor results in far more American jobs.
news.yahoo.com/open-immigration-could-double-global-economy-162100675.html
Without government a person would certainly have the Right of Liberty to walk from either Mexico City to Denver or from Denver to Mexico City.
Why would we even consider what Mexico offers when we, the United States, benefit from the fact that the Mexican economy isn't as good as the US economy? As noted above we benefit from immigrant labor as it creates more (and higher paying) American jobs than the immigrants fill.
Here is a fundamental question for you.
Should an Inalienable Right of the Person (e.g. the Right of Liberty) be violated for economic gain by another person?
I really do not know what you mean by the question with which you have ended your rebuttal. (If you mean, Is it okay to hire illegals "for economic gain," while knowing that they are in the US illegally--hire them in any capacity--I would answer with a resounding no. In fact, I believe that employers who hire illegals should have their respective businesses closed down for several weeks for an initial violation; and closed down permanently for any subsequent violation within a period of, oh, say, five years.) You have tap danced around the fundamental question, viz.: Why should it be considered a law of nature that the Mexican economy must be vastly inferior to the American economy? (The Canadian economy--and Canada, also, is contiguous to the US--appears to function pretty well.) |
|
