No, it doesn’t. You would be the illegal immigrant in that metaphor trying to enter the United States. So I have the right to defend my property against you.
“No, it doesn’t. You would be the illegal immigrant in that metaphor trying to enter the United States. So I have the right to defend my property against you.”
What if we got to war and I win. After I make you make you my slave or “citizen”, I’ll declare myself king over your property and be the new rightful owner.
If you think being a citizen makes you a slave, your definition is highly skewed. Citizenship infers rights and responsibilities. Slavery infers responsibilities without rights. And now you’re talking about invading my property and declaring war on me for defending myself in doing so. No logic. No logic.
lol wow now your accusing me of having no logic. If you couldn’t see where I was going with that example, I guess your helpeless. I still haven’t seen a solid argument on why you think the state is legitimate in the first place,other than your “pride” of being an American citizen.
“And now you’re talking about invading my property and declaring war on me for defending myself in doing so”
And you want to invade other peoples property by interfering with who they associate with. Why should I have to hire an American citizen to cut my grass if I can get a immigrant to do it cheaper? Because you say so?
@ Brian
You keep blaming the recipients of welfare, when you need to be blaming the government for stealing your money in the first place!
QFT
@ Brian,
"Considering I pay for public schools and everything like that, I don’t want illegal immigrants on that property, which, since it also belongs to everyone else who pays for it, creates problems.
You’re right it does create problems because I own some of it to and want to allow immigrants to use it. So the solution should be ban immigration and peoples rights to associate with who they choose or, more simply here, privatize all schools and hospitals and let their owners associate or not associate with who they choose. I choose the latter. As far as welfare I already addressed this, abolish it, not because of immigration but because its deplorable on all kinds of levels.
@ Brian
Does the state own the child? No. Also, how can Arizon pass a law stating that the children of illegal immigrants born in the US can not be American citizens which is guaranteed by the US constitution. Also, the mother choose to cross the border for her own reasons but the government is using force on her to go back and abandon her child thus leaving the child parentless. Last time I checked, making a child an orphan is unethical.
Also, believing in propert rights means that the person as owner is the ruler over his property. By government being able to state who may or may not visit someone’s property (for whatever reason) is in violation of those property rights. The right to property means not just the fact you own it but in how you use it as well.
You made an example if someone were to go onto your property without your permission, then you could use force to remove that person. Now if I have an illegal immigrant in my house because I invited him and the government decides to break in and forcablly remove him, how is it that my property rights are not violated? The only way to logically argue out of this one is by claiming I have no real property rights that are not granted by the state.So by your logic I should be able to fight back against government agents coming into my house as they are violating a sphere of land they have no authorization to be on.But that is only if one believes in property rights and thus being able to use the property as I see fit.
the libertarian stance on the current immigration issue is wrong headed and harmful to the future of your (our?) cause. Regardless of the theoretical correctness of your argument, we live in a world currently with borders. Outside of our borders are tens of millions of people from lands that generally are of extremely different economic circumstances and mostly different beliefs in property rights etc. allowing 10, 20 ++ million such people to live and work here freely is the quickest formula to advance socialism within our borders. This is where theory and utility collide – economic freedom is most important to me – protecting my property from those who would take it – illegal, legal, naturalized or native- I don’t give a crap.
And as much as some libertarians despise “imaginary lines on a map” the current statist alternative is no lines and a single super powerful government. A much worse choice than lots of imaginary lines. I say the more lines the better. Right of exit, no??? which does not mean “ must accept the exiters”.. So until the state is abolished, your ideas of unfettered free movement is wrong. In my most humble opinion of course.
Also someone mentioned the federal gov. doesn’t have the constitutial right to regulate immigration, fine. But the states do…
Whenever I hear “soldiers died for our freedoms” I remember the church dogma: jesus died for us (our sins). When you secularize an error it is still an error.
I said Arizona legislators are working on an amendment. It would sculpt the Constitution to its original intent so people don’t misconstrue it and think kids born to illegal immigrants are citizens. That way the children and parents aren’t separated, and they aren’t claimed as citizens.
Are you actually gonna back up some of your claims about the state and immigration or are you just going to ignore all the refutations that’s been presented to you?
Everyone’s arguments are nearly the same as everyone else’s. Many of you on here don’t believe in any state at all. I believe in small government, and I believe part of a small government’s responsibility is to keep illegal immigrants out of the country. You can believe you’re a citizen of the world for however long you want, but there are real borders in the world. Illegal immigrants are an insult to immigrants who come here legally with hard work.
I believe part of a small government’s responsibility is to keep illegal immigrants out of the country.
Fair enough. If only US government were legitimate government…But it’s not, so you are in contradiction here. You are for small (limited, assuming) government where all people create it voluntary and “protect” their borders, yet you ignore the fact, that USA is not such government and it is clearly not limited.
So can u justify the state then, without being inconsistent and contradicting yourself? You say you believe in private property, but yet if I choose to hire an illegal immigrant over an American, you think it’s ok for the government to come to my property and use force to get me to cooperate with their rules. Do you not see the problem with this picture? You either believe in private property or you don’t.
As I said, since I believe in government enforcing our borders, being in the country illegally is illegal. It is breaking the law. If you break the law, the government can stop you from doing so. If you want to give your jobs to illegal immigrants, the government will freely let you leave our country and run those operations in Mexico, Cuba, or wherever you want. Just so long as you don’t break the law by allowing illegal immigrants to work in our country where they do not have citizenship. Just as you’re telling that that I can either believe in private property or not, I can say to you that you can either believe in citizenship/laws or not.
I’m not ignoring that fact. Our government is bloated beyond recognition. But while I know that it is way too big, I don’t think it’s too big as far as security on our borders goes. In that respect, the government is doing it’s job (barely). Where I want the government to decrease is in other matters (welfare, foreign intervention, etc.).
I believe in small government, and I believe part of a small government’s responsibility is to keep illegal immigrants out of the country.
I believe that it is my responsibility to defuse minarchist utopianism. Please read the following:
Hoppe: On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution
Block: Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government
You still haven’t answered the question as to how my property rights are not being violated when the state can tell me who I can or cannot have on it. If I have a right to my property (which means an uncontested use of it as being my territory) then I should be allowed to have illegals live on it without the interference of government if me and the illegal have an aggreed upon arangement. To say otherwise means that I don’t have a right to my property since the state can regulate what I do with it and who I am and am not allowed to have on it. Therefore my freedom to own propety can only exist within the predefined boundaries that the state imposes upon me or will impose upon me in a future date.
Next is the other issue as to the original intent on constitutional issue. Which Framer intent are you referring to? Hamilton and Jeffeson were not in one accord. Since the founders disagreed so heavily on issues you can’t claim to say that the founder’s are in accord with your proposal or any other for that matter. Heck they could not even agree as to what the oringinal intent was. The Federalist believe it was to give power to a centralized authority while the Democratic Republicans believed it to be a check on centralized power.
Then there’s absolutely no point in arguing with you. Why don’t you just admit you believe in might makes right and not private property? I can’t see how you can argue over anything the government does then, as long as the “law” allows them too. The whole point of the argument was to show you how stupid immigration laws are and if they are justified, not, well since it’s already a law we need to just enforce it. Why abolish any laws if its already a law?
Tomorrow, the federal government radically alters its immigration policy. Any person may cross the border. Employers are allowed to hire non-citizens without fear. In short, there is no longer such a thing as an illegal immigrant.
How would you feel then, Brian? If you are against such a development, why? If you accept it, what is so different between today’s federal policy and tomorrow’s policy, other than the government deciding to change its mind? Is the immigrant of today harming us in some way, whereas the immigrant of tomorrow is not harming us, simply because he is no longer violating a federal law?