(My Clovis News Journal column for June 1, 2012)
I find it somewhat disturbing that both candidates in the District 7 Republican state senator primary race consider violating the inborn fundamental human right of free travel a pressing issue. The "most significant local issue", in fact.
Of course, this violation is dishonestly framed as ending the issuance of "drivers licenses" for "illegal immigrants"
It is strange that the people most in favor of this out-of-bounds abuse of authority are also the ones who most often advocate restoring the Constitution to its position as the highest law of the land. Those two positions are mutually exclusive. The Constitution, not to mention Natural Law, makes no provision for declaring anyone an "illegal immigrant' That's right- regulating immigration is unconstitutional and puts you on the wrong side of the law. Who's "illegal" now?
You can support the Constitution, or you can try to enforce laws against "illegal immigrants", but you can't do both without being inconsistent.
Where does that leave the issue? Isn't there a problem that needs to be solved? Yes, but it isn't what you might believe it is.
The root problem is the unfounded belief that government has the authority to require a license before anyone is allowed to drive. How far do you think such a bizarre notion would have
gotten with Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or Benjamin Franklin? I think they would have ridiculed the first politician or bureaucrat to make such a demand, and resisted, in a spirited manner, the first soldier who tried to enforce it. Once again, the Constitution that they established simply doesn't allow it.
Remember that the Constitution was intended to restrain the government, not "the people", and that anything that is not expressly permitted of government, in writing in the Constitution, is strictly prohibited. If it isn't there, the government can't legally do it.
Those who make the claim that since government builds the roads they can regulate travel thereupon are missing the point that government has no business building roads in the first place.
So, I am in the position of provisionally agreeing with both candidates and those who find this to be a "most significant local issue". "Illegal immigrants" (or independent migrants, if we were to be more honest) should not be issued drivers licenses. And neither should anyone else.
It's not about "safety"; it's about liberty. If a driver is being dangerous there are real-time ways to stop the threat when it occurs. Possessing a license is a guarantee of nothing, as some of the safest drivers I have ever known have proved by not being caught.
Of course, this violation is dishonestly framed as ending the issuance of "drivers licenses" for "illegal immigrants"
It is strange that the people most in favor of this out-of-bounds abuse of authority are also the ones who most often advocate restoring the Constitution to its position as the highest law of the land. Those two positions are mutually exclusive. The Constitution, not to mention Natural Law, makes no provision for declaring anyone an "illegal immigrant' That's right- regulating immigration is unconstitutional and puts you on the wrong side of the law. Who's "illegal" now?
You can support the Constitution, or you can try to enforce laws against "illegal immigrants", but you can't do both without being inconsistent.
Where does that leave the issue? Isn't there a problem that needs to be solved? Yes, but it isn't what you might believe it is.
The root problem is the unfounded belief that government has the authority to require a license before anyone is allowed to drive. How far do you think such a bizarre notion would have
gotten with Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or Benjamin Franklin? I think they would have ridiculed the first politician or bureaucrat to make such a demand, and resisted, in a spirited manner, the first soldier who tried to enforce it. Once again, the Constitution that they established simply doesn't allow it.
Remember that the Constitution was intended to restrain the government, not "the people", and that anything that is not expressly permitted of government, in writing in the Constitution, is strictly prohibited. If it isn't there, the government can't legally do it.
Those who make the claim that since government builds the roads they can regulate travel thereupon are missing the point that government has no business building roads in the first place.
So, I am in the position of provisionally agreeing with both candidates and those who find this to be a "most significant local issue". "Illegal immigrants" (or independent migrants, if we were to be more honest) should not be issued drivers licenses. And neither should anyone else.
It's not about "safety"; it's about liberty. If a driver is being dangerous there are real-time ways to stop the threat when it occurs. Possessing a license is a guarantee of nothing, as some of the safest drivers I have ever known have proved by not being caught.
.
Hi Kent,
ReplyDeleteOh, bother! You know as well as I that both Jefferson and Washington registered and insured their horses and both gentlemen had valid equestrian licenses. Ben Franklin, on the other hand, was a scofflaw, constantly in trouble with Johnny Law, and because he never showed anyone his birth certificate, I suspect Ben was an illegal.
The revered Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 says:
The Congress shall have power … To establish a uniform rule of naturalization
So much for the Founder's love of freedom and their "tailored enslavement" Constitution.
Dave
Of course a "uniform rule of naturalization" doesn't say who can be here or not- it says who shall be considered State property. Oops, I mean a "citizen".
ReplyDeleteBut, as you know, I am NOT a fan of the Constitution, I just think it's a good tool to expose the hypocrisy of the statists.
Kent,
ReplyDeleteI was going to point out the same thing Underground Carpenter did.
The Constitution clearly calls out the power enact all the laws needed to exercise the listed powers.
If they have the power to determine what is legal immigration -- a viable and necessary power -- then they have the power to determine what is illegal.
To say that a country can't determine who can enter legally is to say a person can't keep unwanted guests out of their house. Doesn't make much sense to me.
Except that a home-owner owns their house- a government doesn't "own" all the property within its borders. I can't tell my next door neighbors who they can invite in. Yes, I realize that the government behaves as though it owns all the property in America- hence the reprehensible act of theft known as "property tax", but that is just what it is: an act of theft. A thief acting as though he owns what he has stolen.
ReplyDeleteKent,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct but I view it differently.
The people, through our elected representatives, do have a right to say who can participate in the activities and who can gain entry into the country.
The government isn't some independent agency -- like a 3rd neighbor, it is the 2 neighbors saying "We are going to keep criminals out of each other houses if the other isn't home"
We, the people, have allowed the government to run unchecked for too long. But we definitely have the authority to decide who gets to live on our property...and the country is our property.
Eh. No one "represents" me but me. And no one can.
ReplyDeleteAnd, I wouldn't care if two people agree to keep other people out of each other's houses, as long as they keep it between themselves and leave me (or others who don't consent) out of it. And don't make me pay for it.
"we definitely have the authority to decide who gets to live on our property". Yes. "Our property". No argument there at all.
"the country is our property" sounds like collectivism to me. I don't own any property other than what I actually own. I don't own your property and don't have any right to control it in any way, and I don't own "public property" [sic], either.
Now, if I were allowed unlimited access and control over other property, including the right to use it or destroy it (the definition of "ownership"), then I would agree I own that property. Show me how I own (or have authority to control and destroy) someone's ranch land along the Rio Grande and I'll happily pack up and move there. And I'll tell the owner you said it was OK as I can decide who lives on "our property".
Bob S,
ReplyDelete"The people, through our elected representatives, do have a right to say who can participate in the activities and who can gain entry into the country."
I disagree. Rights are not additive. A right that you don't possess can't be passed, collectively, to "elected representatives".
A man ought to be able to move anywhere on this planet he thinks might better his situation, and he should be able to do it without begging anyone's permission.
Dave
The license isn't about driving on roads anymore. It's about a stealth national ID. I've got asked for I.D. ( i.e. "driver license") for stuff totally unrelated to driving. It happens so much that it isn't even noticed any longer.
ReplyDelete