Caller: Trump's Immigration Plan Is Un-American

RUSH: This is Greg in Louisville. Hello, Greg, great to have you on the program. Hi.

CALLER: Well, look, one thing I agree with you about Trump is his style is refreshing, people like that. I like him. I like that he doesn't take anything from people. He confronts them and he seems not to care what people think, and I like that. I wish we had more of that in American politics. But I think his policies are a disaster. You know, you supported NAFTA and you were wise enough to do that and I think Algore and somebody mentioned you as a distinguished American --

CALLER: You were wise enough to support it, and Trump's been a protectionist for 30 years. His policies, I don't know how you can believe anything he says to begin with. He changed his position on every issue, including abortion, you know, even immigration, he was attacking Romney a few years ago. So trust is a big thing, but also I think his immigration policy would be a disaster, and I think it's really un-American. I just think that's not what we are. That he isn't who we are.

RUSH: Okay. Explain why his immigration policy, because that is policy by the way. His immigration stance is now codified as policy. It's not just hyperbole or performance art or whatever you want to call it, but what is un-American about it?

CALLER: Well, I think it sends a message of hostility to immigration. I don't think that's what we want to do. I think that you're very negative about immigration, and I think that's, you know, I just don't think that's a good policy to have. I think the Republican Party can be --

RUSH: Wait a second. This is a good point. I'm not hostile to immigration or negative to immigration. I am hostile to illegal immigration and the accommodation of illegal immigration, and I am hostile to the fact that we have given up assimilating immigrants to the American culture, the American way of life. We're losing the country here, slowly but surely.

CALLER: But what we're doing is placing the federal government in charge, like with E-Verify, you're gonna have to go to Obama to get permission to hire somebody just because you're afraid some Mexican might come across and do somebody's garden. I mean, it's ridiculous. Conservatives talk about small government, they want to put the federal government in charge of employment. It's a disaster.

RUSH: Wait a minute. Which conservatives are you talking about here that want to do that?

CALLER: E-Verify. Republicans support that. You support that, I believe, you said positive things about E-Verify.

RUSH: Wait a minute, you're putting a lot of words in my mouth. A, I'm not a Trump supporter. B, E-Verify, the only thing I've come out in support of is opposing every immigration plan I've heard and unfortunately I've been lobbied like you can't believe.

RUSH: I've been brought to meetings, I've been told, "If you call it amnesty, it's dead." And then they tried to tell me why it isn't amnesty. And I've heard about this card and what it adds up to is a national ID for people, you know, because everybody --

CALLER: You've talked about E-Verify in the past I believe and said positive things about it.

RUSH: It's not even in my lexicon. You could do a keyword search of my website for E-Verify, you'll never find the words coming out of my mouth, and if you do, it'll just be to report on it, not to support it, 'cause I can't even right now tell you what the hell it is.

You claimed that the USA Patriot Act was already in place before 9/11

There was no specific claim; the language was unintentionally ambiguous. My point was that plans to use usurpations of power are in the works long before we see them, as was clearly the case with the PATRIOT Act and will also be with e-verify. The same is true of the relationship between that and NAIS.

I have bad news for you: draft legislation that hasn't been voted on and signed by the President that's just lying around in some guy's office is no more "law" that can be "used for enforcement" than the piece of scrap paper sitting here on my desk.

That is not true. You clearly do not know how the processes of building test cases for new rules and regulations work. Tweaks of interpretation are often tested long before codification. So are tie-ins between laws. Look at how many nifty features were inserted into Obamacare without any apparent connection to healthcare.

Please do actually try to keep up with your own posts, even if you can't keep up with anyone else's.

Nice projector you have there. You can go back to sleep now.

>> Driving is a privilege under the States <<

Bzzzzt. Sorry, wrong answer. Thanks for playing.

It has gone all the way to the Supreme Court several times and every time it has been ruled that “driving” is a right guaranteed under the US Constitution to freely travel wherever you want to. Driving is only a method of travel and free travel, whether on foot, bicycle or car, is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Driving a vehicle for pay or hire or commercially is a privilege and can be - and is - regulated by states, and probably unconstitutionally, by the feds. But driving a conveyance of any kind for personal travel is a right, not a privilege. Do some research.

Just because the “drivers license” scam has been perpetuated by all gov’t entities, and people have fallen for it (accepted the scam of it being a “privilege” as you have) doesn’t mean that you are required to have a drivers license to travel in an automobile on public roads, except that by voluntarily applying for and accepting a drivers license contract with the state gov’t, you have subjected yourself to that scam. But it is still a voluntary contract by you and doesn’t change the fact that driving/travel is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Even in a vehicle of any kind (other than commercial).

>> not on private property <<

I never said it applied to private property, but to the public roads. I specifically said, “to travel in an automobile on public roads,” Don’t misconstrue what I said or put up straw man arguments.

>> the Supreme Court has no Constitutional jurisdiction over public roads within the States because the Federal government has no such power enumerated in Article I <<

From Wikipedia (I know):
Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Additionally:
“The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.”

>> I don’t care a bit what the SCOTUS says about that, <<

You may not care but that has little import on how the world functions. I don’t care for a lot of things, but so far, I’m not emperor of the world and I don’t get my way. Neither are you or do you.

>> they have had little respect for the plain meaning of that “Supreme Law of the Land.” <<

On that, I can whole heartedly agree with you. However, there are many rulings detailing the constitutional basis for them, including lower court rulings. Then there is this:

ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;..shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding”

>> The Federal government does have Constitutional jurisdiction over “postal roads” but try and find me one that they bought and built for that expressed purpose other than perhaps the Interstate Highways, which were instead justified as a means of national defense. <<

Again, from wiki:
“As early as the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as not needing explicit enumeration.”

What don’t you understand about “so fundamental... as not needing explicit enumeration” ?

While you may not care what the courts have ruled, your opinion matters little. The facts are strongly against you.

“...[t]he nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land, uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.”Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct 1322, 1329, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969).

“The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.”

“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.”

“The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.”

“...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion...” - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.

Again, do some research. Although your intellect seems stunted by your lack of care about how the real world works. Childishly stamping your feet and claiming that the court rulings don’t matter doesn’t hold much water in adult discussions.

“There are none so blind as one who will not see.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.