14

Founders On Immigration

Posted by khalling 8 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
112 comments | Share | Flag

I am re-posting this article in light of Castro kicking the bucket. and I had a few thoughts. When conversing with many Conservatives, I find that they are welcoming to those Cubans, who under great risk, flee the country for Florida. and in that light I wanted to make a few comments to this article.
1. Michelle Malkin was born just a few weeks after her parents came to the US. They were sponsored by a company. However, if we have immigrant quotas, and they had been beyond the quota, Michelle Malkin might well have been a Philippine. and the Philippine's is currently a hot bed of terrorism makers-big Islamic presence there. hmmm
2. If the founders felt strongly on this issue, why do restraints on who could come to the US directly contradict the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Commerce Clause?
3. Mexicans are almost universally Catholic. They are not muslim. Few are terrorists
4. Why are muslims considered a group until they become ex-muslim-then they are considered an individual? (ex: Bosch Fawstin, Ayaan Hirsi Ali)
5. why is it that the Conservatives are hugely vocal about the Constitution until it contradicts their desires. Then they willfully ignore it?


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 5 months ago
    "why is it that the Conservatives are hugely vocal about the Constitution until it contradicts their desires."
    It's NOT just conservatives. Everyone is tempted to ignore the Constitution when it contradicts their desires. It exists to stand up to desires of the mob.

    I think the issue of immigration will go away on its own because it's so easy to send value across borders. Human beings and physical parts get inspected and slowed down by custom, creating a hassle for developers, but the plans (CAD drawings, software, firmware) sail easily across borders. All the value is in the plans. People created the nation state because geographic barriers slowed the movement of people and materials, and people on opposite sides of those barriers had different values and interests. The conditions that created borders have disappeared from earth, and I see them mostly as a vestige of a time long gone.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am not incorrect. all others, one must assume, want to preserve their own life. they do not think of you. they look to the the place, the land, and yes, the law, to make their decision.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I would not have caved there Herb, especially in this day and age. I understood #3 perfectly and it also applies to our laws and culture Too. The creatures government have brought here, don't necessarily want to be here as much as they didn't want to be where they were at. Generally, they oppose everything we stand for, or used to or at least was our stated ideal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The system is broken. Tired, poor, etc. will have to wait until we get the situation in hand. You cannot expect a broken system to fix itself by breaking it further.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If Trump follows through and vastly improves the immigration situation we can re-evaluate. Until then, no illegals.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The presumption here is that all who come are yearning to be free. Many who come here now do not come for that purpose.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This incorrectly presumes that all others wish to preserve my life, or at least not interfere with it. In most cases, this presumption is true, but not in all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do not like the term "accident of birth". Birth is not an accident. Except in very rare cases, it is the result of two consenting adults expressing their appreciation of the other's finest qualities, and then at least one of them continues to perpetuate the result until a self-sustaining life is born. Ms. Malkin's birth has been a positive for my life. The fundamental premise necessary for acceptance of others into my society is that they agree to the idea to not make others their subjects. If a Muslim does that, then they are simultaneously denying the Qu'ran. Contradictions cannot exist.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A false alternative: Either we have to let you in or we think you are dirt. It may be desirable to allow certain people to immigrate, but it is certainly not our obligation. Nor are we stopping people outside our borders from establishing their own free societies.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Since when does the Statue of Liberty represent unrestricted immigration?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Having the ability to support yourself doesn't mean you have to be rich.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The US "should" accept individuals? Since when is that our duty? There is no "right" to be a citizen of the US, or even a permanent resident. The government's responsibility is to protect its own citizens, not the alleged "right" of anyone who wants to come here. Today's incident at Ohio State is just the latest example of what happens when the government defaults on its primary responsibility to its citizens.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I did. It's a ridiculous statement of wholly inflammatory nature. You may disagree, but to argue that one who doesn't support your immigration policy wants to blow up the Statue of Liberty is a statement very worthy of a downvote. It's pure accusation and ad hominem.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    America's immigration system is dysfunctional.

    It has been deliberately broken by politicians on both sides of the aisle. The left is looking for new voters, the right is looking for cheap labor. Both are exploiting, just for different goals. Neither is right.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    From Article I, Section 8 (which specifically enumerates various powers expressly delegated to Congress:

    (begins here)
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    ... and many more.

    It may be somewhat technically incorrect to call it "immigration" policy, but rather naturalization policy (and for that technicality I apologize if there was confusion) where naturalization is the process by which one becomes a Citizen of the United States.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    America has no legal obligation to take in ANYONE. Nor does any other country have an obligation of that type.

    A country without border controls is no longer a country it is chaos with a border. Just look at what is happening in the EU while being overrun with "refugees".

    I don't care about whether the individual wanting in is rich or poor. I care about whether they want to become and American with the responsibilities and rights entailed.

    George Soros for example, is rich indeed and I consider him very destructive to every society he has entered. He should never have been let into America and should be deported. Preferably to Russia who have an extradition warrant out on him as I recall.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Liberty is a principle in and of itself, would you not agree? So a proposal that offers to allow those of an anti-liberty posture not only unfettered but privileged access to the United States of America is self-defeating and contradictory.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yes, but in here, I try to draw many people. Including religionists. it is my purpose on this site
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by IndianaGary 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Someone keeps down marking you. ;-(

    To this extent, I disagree: Objectivism is a life-affirming philosophy. Most religions are based upon philosophies that are not. When a religion actively preaches the death of those who won't convert, I deem those that follow that religion uncivilized, a threat, and not welcome. Islam is both Attila and the Witch Doctor and those that practice it should not be allowed into the country. That is for the preservation of ALL in this country that reject such a philosophy of death.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 5 months ago
    The Founding Fathers did not have to deal with immigrants who repaid their host country’s hospitality by crashing airplanes into buildings, killing thousands of people. Michelle Malkin’s article is a breath of fresh air.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Correct. That's why we need to know exactly who the individuals are that are being admitted. Without a credible, reliable system of vetting, we should be hesitant to admit anyone coming from bastions of terror. The meaning of the words "refugee" and "asylum seeker" have become distorted to allow almost anyone to come here under those labels.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo