Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at July 18, 2014 10:28 AM
This might seem like stating the obvious, but not all immigrants commit crime. (I mean, real crime, not the crime of being an 'illegal person', whatever that's supposed to mean, I don't know how a person can be 'illegal' for just being in a geographic space if they aren't specifically trespassing.)
Obviously those that commit real crimes belong in prison. But it isn't just to use force against innocent people to catch guilty people.
I wish you were right that an open-door immigration policy was 'a-cookin' but that seems unlikely given how many Americans seem to dislike immigrants.
Lobster
at July 18, 2014 11:11 AM
(I mean, real crime, not the crime of being an 'illegal person', whatever that's supposed to mean, I don't know how a person can be 'illegal' for just being in a geographic space if they aren't specifically trespassing.)
Via Jonathan Turley (http://jonathanturley.org/2014/07/18/report-legalization-of-prostitution-in-rhode-island-led-to-improvements-of-both-public-health-and-public-safety/)
Report: Legalization of Prostitution In Rhode Island Led To Improvements of Both Public Health and Public Safety
No, in the legal/moral sense, they can't be "trespassing" in any situation that you (as a citizen) wouldn't also be considered trespassing. I.e. you have a right to be on private property provided you have the owner of that property's consent; if an 'illegal' person is on someone's private property WITH the owner's consent, then how can they be trespassing? E.g. if an 'illegal' person is living in your home and paying you rent, they HAVE YOUR PERMISSION, so cannot be said to be trespassing. If an 'illegal' person is doing work for an employer, then also by definition, they have the business's consent to be on the business's property.
You have the right to be on public land and it isn't considered trespassing; e.g. you may stand next to a road or ride in a vehicle on the roads. Public property isn't 'privately owned' so you can't be said to be trespassing on it - there is no basis to say someone who is 'illegal' is 'trespassing', because it's public land.
A crime must have a victim.
Lobster
at July 18, 2014 5:19 PM
> But they are specifically trespassing
lujlp, I'm not sure quite where the point of confusion is on this, but I think it might be that you're blurring property owner's rights with third party claims - e.g. it seems like you are thinking that because the government said 'illegal' person X may not be on YOUR private property, that therefore that person has 'no permission' to be on YOUR property. However, it's YOUR property - a third party cannot grant or revoke 'permission' over who you allow on your property (unless they have evidence that person is commiting a natural crime, i.e. a REAL crime).
Think about it this: Does Joe down the road from you have a right to tell you who YOU may or may not have on YOUR private property? No, he doesn't, because it's your property.
And a government can only 'have' the rights DELEGATE to it by the people. Those rights EXTEND from land ownership in this case. If Joe doesn't have the right to tell you that you may not have person X on your property, then Joe also does not have the right to delegate to the government the task of evicting people from your property that you WANT on your property.
I do agree that people in local communities have a very limited right to ban immigration - e.g. a Home Ownership Association could rightly ban 'illegal mexicans' or whatever - but that right extends only from property ownership of the property owners within that HOA - they can do that only because they own property there - but they cannot rightly tell someone on the opposite side of the USA who they may or may allow on their property.
Lobster
at July 18, 2014 5:27 PM
Sorry for typos.
> a third party cannot grant or revoke 'permission' over who you allow on your property
What I mean here is, only you (as property owner) can grant or revoke 'permission' - the concept of 'trespass' is based on consent of the owner of the property. If both you and the so-called "illegal" person CONSENT, then there is no rights violation - no victim - no trespass.
Lobster
at July 18, 2014 5:30 PM
> Does Joe down the road from you have a right to tell you who YOU may or may not have on YOUR private property?
The inverse is also obviously true. You have the right to NOT allow 'illegal' immigrants on your own property, if that's your preference. But if Joe down the road DOES want to consent to rent out a room to that 'illegal' person, on Joe's own property (i.e. there's mutual consent between Joe and that person), then you don't personally have any natural right to go over to Joe's house with a gun and force that 'illegal' person to get off Joe's property. And if you don't personally have the right, you cannot have the right to delegate that right to a third party i.e. your government, i.e. you can't delegate to the government to send a team in with guns to Joe's property to evict the person who is there with Joe's consent, because you never had that right in the first place.
Lobster
at July 18, 2014 5:37 PM
> And a government can only 'have' the rights DELEGATE to it by the people. Those rights EXTEND from land ownership in this case
Sorry, OCD-posting now, but the logical conclusion of this argument is basically that immigration shouldn't really be a Federal issue, i.e. the Federal government can't really rightfully have much say in local immigration policy, but that policy should be decided by local communities (as an extension of the rights of property owners in those communities) - e.g. it should be allowed for individual cities, say, to either ban or allow 'immigration', depending on the preference of those in that community - they just don't get to dictate their own preference on other communities. This is the only feasible way to satisfy a requirement that interactions between individuals remain largely voluntary and consent-based.
Of course, this logic is grounded in the idea that people from other countries are also full and complete human beings, and therefore entitled to the same rights as everyone everywhere. If one believes that foreigners are less than full human beings (which isn't true though), then one might be able to make a case that foreigners shouldn't be allowed the right to walk the earth (of course, conditional on that all their interactions with locals where they choose to settle and work are mutually voluntary - i.e. they don't engage in 'real crimes'). Since 'foreigners' are full and complete human beings, they therefore should - in fact must - be regarded as having certain intrinsic individual rights. And the proper role of the government is only to protect individuals from violations of their natural rights - e.g. they should be protecting them from evictions that violate their natural rights, not partaking in them. It's ultimately the only rationally consistent position, shocking as it may seem to most. (I won't go so far as to say 'open borders everywhere' ... I think in a free society there would be a lot more variation, e.g. some cities may be open to it while other cities might build walls around the city or something, like they used to do in old Europe a lot.)
The main complication in all this is issues like Federal benefits, but I think that while this is an issue that should be looked at very carefully, as there is some truth to the arguments there, it ultimately does not and cannot logically negate certain underlying rights of all people - i.e. human beings don't lose the 'right to walk the earth and interact on a mutually voluntary basis with locals' just of the existence of massive systems of tax-and-redistribute that may result in imbalances.
There's no such thing as a 'crime of existing' - again, a crime must have a victim.
Lobster
at July 18, 2014 5:58 PM
Explain then the justification for the federal government refusing to enforce laws that citizen want enforced, and federal courts deeming actions taken by states to make illegal immigrants unwelcome to be unconstitutional.
Personally I could care less how many people want to come here for better life. I do think those of us already here should have some say. And I do think we need to get rid of public assistance programs if we are going to allow unrestricted migration
" And if you don't personally have the right, you cannot have the right to delegate that right to a third party i.e. your government"
Exactly! I have no legal right to pull someone over for speeding, therefore, I cannot delegate that to law enforcement, and thus speeding tickets cannot be issued.
Ta da! Logic! This is going to save me boatloads of fines.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at July 19, 2014 10:15 AM
Mmmm....can't ya just SMELL the open-door immigration policy a-cookin'?
Over the gunsmoke, I mean.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 18, 2014 10:28 AM
This might seem like stating the obvious, but not all immigrants commit crime. (I mean, real crime, not the crime of being an 'illegal person', whatever that's supposed to mean, I don't know how a person can be 'illegal' for just being in a geographic space if they aren't specifically trespassing.)
Obviously those that commit real crimes belong in prison. But it isn't just to use force against innocent people to catch guilty people.
I wish you were right that an open-door immigration policy was 'a-cookin' but that seems unlikely given how many Americans seem to dislike immigrants.
Lobster at July 18, 2014 11:11 AM
(I mean, real crime, not the crime of being an 'illegal person', whatever that's supposed to mean, I don't know how a person can be 'illegal' for just being in a geographic space if they aren't specifically trespassing.)
But they are specifically trespassing.
lujlp at July 18, 2014 12:22 PM
Via Jonathan Turley (http://jonathanturley.org/2014/07/18/report-legalization-of-prostitution-in-rhode-island-led-to-improvements-of-both-public-health-and-public-safety/)
Report: Legalization of Prostitution In Rhode Island Led To Improvements of Both Public Health and Public Safety
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/17/when-rhode-island-accidentally-legalized-prostitution-rape-and-stis-decreased-sharply/?wpsrc=AG0003376
So the article says that with legal prostitution,
the number of rapes reported to police in the state declined by 31 percent
But wait, I thought rape was about power and not about sex?
jerry at July 18, 2014 1:08 PM
But wait, I thought rape was about power and not about sex?
When people say this I point out bank robbery is all about power and not about money
lujlp at July 18, 2014 1:53 PM
> But they are specifically trespassing.
No, in the legal/moral sense, they can't be "trespassing" in any situation that you (as a citizen) wouldn't also be considered trespassing. I.e. you have a right to be on private property provided you have the owner of that property's consent; if an 'illegal' person is on someone's private property WITH the owner's consent, then how can they be trespassing? E.g. if an 'illegal' person is living in your home and paying you rent, they HAVE YOUR PERMISSION, so cannot be said to be trespassing. If an 'illegal' person is doing work for an employer, then also by definition, they have the business's consent to be on the business's property.
You have the right to be on public land and it isn't considered trespassing; e.g. you may stand next to a road or ride in a vehicle on the roads. Public property isn't 'privately owned' so you can't be said to be trespassing on it - there is no basis to say someone who is 'illegal' is 'trespassing', because it's public land.
A crime must have a victim.
Lobster at July 18, 2014 5:19 PM
> But they are specifically trespassing
lujlp, I'm not sure quite where the point of confusion is on this, but I think it might be that you're blurring property owner's rights with third party claims - e.g. it seems like you are thinking that because the government said 'illegal' person X may not be on YOUR private property, that therefore that person has 'no permission' to be on YOUR property. However, it's YOUR property - a third party cannot grant or revoke 'permission' over who you allow on your property (unless they have evidence that person is commiting a natural crime, i.e. a REAL crime).
Think about it this: Does Joe down the road from you have a right to tell you who YOU may or may not have on YOUR private property? No, he doesn't, because it's your property.
And a government can only 'have' the rights DELEGATE to it by the people. Those rights EXTEND from land ownership in this case. If Joe doesn't have the right to tell you that you may not have person X on your property, then Joe also does not have the right to delegate to the government the task of evicting people from your property that you WANT on your property.
I do agree that people in local communities have a very limited right to ban immigration - e.g. a Home Ownership Association could rightly ban 'illegal mexicans' or whatever - but that right extends only from property ownership of the property owners within that HOA - they can do that only because they own property there - but they cannot rightly tell someone on the opposite side of the USA who they may or may allow on their property.
Lobster at July 18, 2014 5:27 PM
Sorry for typos.
> a third party cannot grant or revoke 'permission' over who you allow on your property
What I mean here is, only you (as property owner) can grant or revoke 'permission' - the concept of 'trespass' is based on consent of the owner of the property. If both you and the so-called "illegal" person CONSENT, then there is no rights violation - no victim - no trespass.
Lobster at July 18, 2014 5:30 PM
> Does Joe down the road from you have a right to tell you who YOU may or may not have on YOUR private property?
The inverse is also obviously true. You have the right to NOT allow 'illegal' immigrants on your own property, if that's your preference. But if Joe down the road DOES want to consent to rent out a room to that 'illegal' person, on Joe's own property (i.e. there's mutual consent between Joe and that person), then you don't personally have any natural right to go over to Joe's house with a gun and force that 'illegal' person to get off Joe's property. And if you don't personally have the right, you cannot have the right to delegate that right to a third party i.e. your government, i.e. you can't delegate to the government to send a team in with guns to Joe's property to evict the person who is there with Joe's consent, because you never had that right in the first place.
Lobster at July 18, 2014 5:37 PM
> And a government can only 'have' the rights DELEGATE to it by the people. Those rights EXTEND from land ownership in this case
Sorry, OCD-posting now, but the logical conclusion of this argument is basically that immigration shouldn't really be a Federal issue, i.e. the Federal government can't really rightfully have much say in local immigration policy, but that policy should be decided by local communities (as an extension of the rights of property owners in those communities) - e.g. it should be allowed for individual cities, say, to either ban or allow 'immigration', depending on the preference of those in that community - they just don't get to dictate their own preference on other communities. This is the only feasible way to satisfy a requirement that interactions between individuals remain largely voluntary and consent-based.
Of course, this logic is grounded in the idea that people from other countries are also full and complete human beings, and therefore entitled to the same rights as everyone everywhere. If one believes that foreigners are less than full human beings (which isn't true though), then one might be able to make a case that foreigners shouldn't be allowed the right to walk the earth (of course, conditional on that all their interactions with locals where they choose to settle and work are mutually voluntary - i.e. they don't engage in 'real crimes'). Since 'foreigners' are full and complete human beings, they therefore should - in fact must - be regarded as having certain intrinsic individual rights. And the proper role of the government is only to protect individuals from violations of their natural rights - e.g. they should be protecting them from evictions that violate their natural rights, not partaking in them. It's ultimately the only rationally consistent position, shocking as it may seem to most. (I won't go so far as to say 'open borders everywhere' ... I think in a free society there would be a lot more variation, e.g. some cities may be open to it while other cities might build walls around the city or something, like they used to do in old Europe a lot.)
The main complication in all this is issues like Federal benefits, but I think that while this is an issue that should be looked at very carefully, as there is some truth to the arguments there, it ultimately does not and cannot logically negate certain underlying rights of all people - i.e. human beings don't lose the 'right to walk the earth and interact on a mutually voluntary basis with locals' just of the existence of massive systems of tax-and-redistribute that may result in imbalances.
There's no such thing as a 'crime of existing' - again, a crime must have a victim.
Lobster at July 18, 2014 5:58 PM
Explain then the justification for the federal government refusing to enforce laws that citizen want enforced, and federal courts deeming actions taken by states to make illegal immigrants unwelcome to be unconstitutional.
Personally I could care less how many people want to come here for better life. I do think those of us already here should have some say. And I do think we need to get rid of public assistance programs if we are going to allow unrestricted migration
lujlp at July 18, 2014 7:42 PM
" And if you don't personally have the right, you cannot have the right to delegate that right to a third party i.e. your government"
Exactly! I have no legal right to pull someone over for speeding, therefore, I cannot delegate that to law enforcement, and thus speeding tickets cannot be issued.
Ta da! Logic! This is going to save me boatloads of fines.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 19, 2014 10:15 AM
Leave a comment