For example:
"Why is enforcement of existing immigration laws, laws which have been a standard for decades, such a divisive issue? Most countries in the world have stringent immigration laws, why is it that America is not allowed to enforce similar laws? Why does the left in particular consider the removal of illegal immigrants representative of 'racism' or 'fascism?' I realize they are mostly insane, but I would just like to hear one valid and practical argument from them as to why the U.S. specifically should be saddled with wide open borders and why American conservatives in particular are racist merely for demanding that the current laws be followed?" ~ Brandon Smith
Let's substitute one Big Government lust, "control" of guns, for "control" of "borders":
"Why is enforcement of existing gun laws, laws which have been a standard for decades, such a divisive issue? Most countries in the world have stringent gun laws, why is it that America is not allowed to enforce similar laws? Why does the right in particular consider the removal of illegal guns representative of 'tyranny' or 'socialism?' I realize they are mostly insane, but I would just like to hear one valid and practical argument from them as to why the U.S. specifically should be saddled with easy access to guns and why American progressives in particular are tyrants merely for demanding that the current laws be followed?"
Because "laws" that are wrong, are wrong. Even if you believe they are "necessary". Even if bad guys would take advantage of the situation if the "law" didn't exist or wasn't enforced.
Even if you believe the Constitution has any "authority", whatever isn't specifically permitted for government to do is expressly forbidden. Nowhere in the Constitution is "immigration control" permitted, so it is an illegal act by the federal government to "control immigration".
Now, government is also similarly forbidden to import "refugees" or otherwise bring people into America, so that's not the issue at hand.
Yes, the Second Amendment specifically places guns beyond the (legal) reach of "laws", but it was unnecessary to do this, since that power wasn't mentioned anyway (and it would have been a rights violation even if the Constitution allowed it)- and the Second Amendment has been utterly powerless against the will of the bullies in Congress and the BATFEces to just go ahead and do what they want.
Whether "immigration" (not a real thing anyway) is a good idea or not, the argument made by Mr. Smith above simply doesn't hold water. It's a purely statist argument, and as such, is nonsense.
 |
| It's still a prison wall even if you can't see it |
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Your argument fails by using the common idiom, “comparing apples to oranges.” The right to self defense is claimed as an inherent right in founding documents and recognized in the Constitution. The fact that such protection is abused by The Occupying Regime does not eliminate such a right from existence.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the mere act of defining and protecting a border DEFINES the existence of a state. Without first doing that, it does not exist- whether you agree that states should exist or not. A state cannot abuse anyone’s rights unless it first exists.
Excuse the “statist argument,” but the primary (and most legitimate) reason a collective of individuals create a state is for protection from invasion from non-member individuals. Hence, borders. The “borders” of the “US” are the borders maintained by the sovereign states within that collective. Yes, the US Constitution gives The Regime no authorization to control these borders which makes it a state duty via the 10th Amendment.
Yes, the states have been negligent in asserting this sovereign right to control their own borders but the reality is The Regime claims such control. Mr. Smith is merely acquiescing to this reality for the sake of argument. Others states exist throughout the world recognizable by the borders they claim and control. American states merely wish to respectfully do the same.
What you see as a “statist argument” is merely liberty loving individuals doing the best they can within the REALITY of a state dominated world. Whiney pleas to ignore such a reality will not make it go away. Neither will poorly written arguments. Frankly, in some instances, shrewdness, tact and pragmatism is more valuable than strict, ideological consistency.
Purist utopians are welcome to ignore and ridicule such actions, whether they understand them or not. We don’t really care.
Apologies for using so much space.
No apologies necessary. Your contributions are valuable. Don't stop.
Delete