Posted on 10/24/2018 11:34:22 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
ML/NJ
It is the sort of question a small child might ask. But it speaks very poorly, coming from an adult.
Remember the words of Forrest Gump: “Stupid is as Bonnie writes”
Why? For the same reason you don’t have a “right” to pick your neighbor’s pocket.
You can have either a welfare state or open borders. Not both.
“Democrats import foreigners because Americans won’t vote for them.”
Will ALL DEMS raise their hand and tell us how many THEY are willing to support ??
A classic leftist-style argument - asking a question in such a way that implies the 'correct' answer.
Democrats import foreigners because Americans won’t vote for them.
********************************************************
LOL but oh so true!
I have always believed, ever since growing up in Africa, that one should have such a right: looking at nomads stopped at arbitrary borders drawn by colonial rulers.
But, but, ... these people did not ask for welfare, they did not break the law, they paid their own way, by work if not in cash.
And I guess I did the same. Five years in England, in paid employment, paying tax and their version of social security, housing and feeding myself.
The same in Singapore, for twenty years: in a full time job, paying for my apartment, keeping myself fed and clothed, registering with the tax authorities, the police, and the Ministry of Manpower; obeying the law, paying my way, and keeping my nose clean.
And I suspect almost any developed country would welcome such people.
But not the parasites who now seek admission.
Let me offer a simple lesson, learned on several picnics by the river: the only way to get rid of the wasps is to put the lid on the marmalade jar.
A lot of people are missing the point, which is dangerous because it’s more serious that it seems at first glance. She’s not saying that you have a right to live anywhere you want, including on someone else’s private property. She’s saying that the government does not have a right to restrict your right to live wherever you want, in the same way that the government cannot restrict your right to practice your religion or speak freely.
We accept this as axiomatically true for those with a legal right to live in the U.S. In China, for example, there is no such right, and the government restricts who can live in what city. We absolutely do recognize that the government cannot restrict the right of citizens to live wherever they want, in the way she’s describing that right.
She then goes from there to say that the rights in the Constitution are generally phrased in the negative (that is to say the rights that are phrased as limitations on government, rather than positively held by citizens), and as such, are not generally predicated on citizenship. The government cannot deprive an alien of their liberty without due process or freedom to practice their faith anymore than they can deprive a citizen.
So then, it comes down to: if the rest of your rights do not depend on citizenship, why should your right to live where you want, free of government restriction, be dependent on it? She tries to say that just allowing someone to live here doesn’t mean they’ll get any of the benefits of citizenship, but we all know perfectly well, that within a New York minute, there will be a court case finding such “second-class citizenship” “unjust” and “unconstitutional”.
But I actually don’t think theoretically it’s that bad of an argument, and let me say, morally, this is where a lot of left’s energy on immigration comes from: that any restrictions on a person’s ability to live where they want are fundamentally unjust. But for me, this is why I think conservative-libertarian needs to be mixed with populism-nationalism to be relevant.
Every country has the right and obligation to treat its citizens better than those of other nations, and one of the fundamental ways to do that is to allow citizens to live wherever they want inside the nation, but exclude others from it, unless we deem it in our interest otherwise. But make no mistake, over the long-term, that fundamental right of a nation to exclude entry and residence will be sorely tested.
“Why is there no right to live where you please?”
Because every nice place would become a hellhole.
Also road capacity is limited. Add 50% more vehicles to a busy highway and the number of collisions will about double.
There’s plenty of vacant land in Honduras and Mexico.
A Mexican can lay concrete blocks just as fast in Mexico as he can in Florida.
In my area of Florida, over 90% of the new home labor is Mexican or Central American.
Start building up Mexico, again.
Mexican law forbids me from living in Mexico - my income is too low.
There’s nothing magic about the USA.
If you set down 1 billion Third World people in the USA the USA will look mostly like a Third World country.
Paraphrasing someone else, you can have a welfare state and you can have a state with open borders, but you can’t have both at the same time.
California is already well on the way there.
Any Third World country could adopt American laws, including building codes.
You don’t want to build up something on your own, but you want to sponge off others.
German cities were 90% rubble after WW2. In 15 years, German hard work made them decent places to live.
Humberto the day laborer does not.
I guess life just sucks. :)
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.