The Refugee Question: why it matters
"But a world without borders is a world without citizens, and a world without citizens is a world without the rights and privileges that attach exclusively to citizenship. Rights and liberties exist only in separate and independent nations; they are the exclusive preserve of the nation-state. Constitutional government only succeeds in the nation-state, where the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. By contrast, to see the globalist principle in practice, look at the European Union. The EU is not a constitutional government; it is an administrative state ruled by unelected bureaucrats. It attempts to do away with both borders and citizens, and it replaces rights and liberty with welfare and regulation as the objects of its administrative rule."
I do wonder though, if we have no borders and no citizens, why do we need a government..? or laws for that matter.
"right and privileges that attach exclusively to citizenship"
WHAT?!? we're going to just skip right over that part and start talking about how to and where to and what to......
I'm too exhausted by dragging every scheme back to examining first principles, when that should have been done at the beginning, to even consider the scheme at all. It's doomed.
It's like attaching a ball and chain to some runners' ankles and then starting to debate the form of the race course. The race isn't going to happen, and everyone wonders why.
sigh.
edited for grammar
more clarity achieved?
What bothers me is that those on the Left want to grant ALL the same Rights and Privileges of a citizen to the Illegals.
That they cannot understand this most basic protection of a citizen boggles my mind.
Should a group of refugees pose a threat to We The People, me dino says to hell with them.
And women are to cover their heads and walk with a male? What's next? Denying our females a driver's license? Rape reports requiring four male witnesses?
This is the land of the free and the home of the brave. No place here for the slavery of Sharia law.
This half Swedish and a quarter Irish dino says, "Assimilate into our melting pot or stay the hell out!"
I am dino~
Hear me ROAR!
If the Founders could have been around following the termination of the Civil War, I'm confident that among the proposed Amendments added thereafter would have been the explicit recognition of property ownership as a fundamental and protected right.
I think it could and would work, were it to be set up in the same fashion as the original US constitution. That is not the way it is set up today, but there is no reason why it could not be done. It is the only structure that would allow for the freedom of the individual, the rights and liberties to exist for each person but still provide a common framework for the core powers of the constitution for us all to work with one and other in a legal and rational system of law.
I know Europe is too enamored with socialism to give it a go right now, but I think there are a few nations which might be amenable. Australia is the first that comes to mind. Vietnam, surprisingly, might be another candidate. The Phillippines would love to embrace the United States - they just don't like Obama. And if you want to throw a nuclear bomb in the mix, Taiwan.