- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is immigration an inalienable constitutional right to all non-citizens?
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:01 pm to ThePoo
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:01 pm to ThePoo
I agree with all this. I was just pointing out if inalienable rights do exist then it means ALL people are to be treated equally under the law. Avoiding law infringing on liberties of non-criminals should be a priority. None of us would want our travels impeded on if we were traveling abroad.
1
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:05 pm to llfshoals
quote:
Frankly we never should have let you white eyes in.
First step there would have been advancing past Stone Age technology. Sorry for all of our hard working ancestors who created a civilization capable of mass-producing steel and guns.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:12 pm to gogotigers
The existence of theoretical inalienable rights does not mean all rights are inalienable
I say theoretical only because it is more of a philosophy
I say theoretical only because it is more of a philosophy
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:13 pm to wmr
quote:
Sorry for all of our hard working ancestors who created a civilization capable of mass-producing steel and guns.
The Turks and Chinese, respectively.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:18 pm to gogotigers
quote:
Yes they do but that does not equal a justified reason for using the force of government to do it.
Inherently, we should not want to ban people who mean us no harm.
You are a loon.
How else is immigration policy implemented other than via a government?
You make absolutely no sense.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:22 pm to wmr
quote:
our hard working ancestors who created a civilization capable of mass-producing steel and guns.
Meh, it was mainly the germs.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:32 pm to KaiserSoze99
The legitimate legal argument against the EO isn't centered around immigration rights, but the authority of the president to issue said EO. Who sets the immigration laws congress or the president? The Cato made a compelling case based on immigration law that trump lacked the authority to issue the EO.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:34 pm to Scoop
Geez, that’s harsh. I think you have a misunderstanding of what I am saying. I said above government has a right to be involved with immigration.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:36 pm to ThePoo
Well theoretical or not, ideas do have consequences, and if you reject inalienable rights it seems one would be stuck left without a logical defense against tyranny.
I do think the inalienable right of liberty found in this nation’s founding documents would impact immigration stances.
I do think the inalienable right of liberty found in this nation’s founding documents would impact immigration stances.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:36 pm to KaiserSoze99
Do. Not. Reward. Line. Jumpers.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:52 pm to gogotigers
You can believe in inalienable rights and not believe that all rights are inalienable
A basic tenet of a national government is an agreement to give up certain rights and liberties in exchange for public health and safety. If you believe inalienable rights exist and you believe that the concept of a nation should exist to serve certain functions then you must agree that not all rights are inalienable rights. If one believes all rights are inalienable then the construct of a nation providing health and safety for its citizens could not exist because you cannot protect the health and safety of your citizens without putting limits on certain rights and freedoms
I'm not sure unfettered movement and immigration is a recognized inalienable right by any country, in fact it's goes against one of the base principles of nation forming
A basic tenet of a national government is an agreement to give up certain rights and liberties in exchange for public health and safety. If you believe inalienable rights exist and you believe that the concept of a nation should exist to serve certain functions then you must agree that not all rights are inalienable rights. If one believes all rights are inalienable then the construct of a nation providing health and safety for its citizens could not exist because you cannot protect the health and safety of your citizens without putting limits on certain rights and freedoms
I'm not sure unfettered movement and immigration is a recognized inalienable right by any country, in fact it's goes against one of the base principles of nation forming
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 4:55 pm
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:59 pm to KaiserSoze99
frick NO, we are the one of the few nations that don't control who comes in. Do we want to remain the stupid people?
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:59 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
You either believe in the government as intended by our Founders, or you do not. They thought anyone should be welcomed into the country.
This is the shittiest comment I've read in weeks, maybe months.
Why did the Constitution put citizenship requirements to hold office, if they didn't believe in borders? Why does the Constitution mention defending said borders?
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:59 pm to KaiserSoze99
I have taken in friends and relatives in my home when they needed the help. I wouldn't have if I felt it would have burdened me or my wife and kids financially.
As citizens of the U.S. we need to make sure our people are taken care of before helping non citizens. Btw, the same analogy works when bringing up all the foreign aid given to other countries.
As citizens of the U.S. we need to make sure our people are taken care of before helping non citizens. Btw, the same analogy works when bringing up all the foreign aid given to other countries.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:59 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Immigration to a Sovereign Nation is not an inalienable right you dumbass.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 5:19 pm to texashorn
quote:
Why did the Constitution put citizenship requirements to hold office, if they didn't believe in borders? Why does the Constitution mention defending said borders?
Why don't you ask what you really want to know, "Why were they just letting everybody in?"
Or more correctly, "Why weren't they respecting their OWN borders?" [SEE: Settling the West]
Posted on 2/4/17 at 5:24 pm to cwill
quote:
The legitimate legal argument against the EO isn't centered around immigration rights, but the authority of the president to issue said EO. Who sets the immigration laws congress or the president? The Cato made a compelling case based on immigration law that trump lacked the authority to issue the EO.
Weird that no one made this argument for Obama's 6 immigration EOs.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 5:38 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
That doesn't have anything to do with immigration. Founders intended on all people that became U.S. citizens to be white. So if you are going to make a case on what our founders did, this is what they did and intended.
Federal naturalization laws (1790, 1795).
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
https://www.indiana.edu/%7Ekdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
Federal naturalization laws (1790, 1795).
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
https://www.indiana.edu/%7Ekdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 5:41 pm
Posted on 2/4/17 at 5:53 pm to ThePoo
I would say a governments primary means for maintaining health and safety is justice served to the criminals and a recompense for the victim, this leads to minimal infringement on the innocent by the authorities. In my opinion foreigners can be vetted (movement fettered) without violating inalienable rights, if our standard is equitable to all foreigners in doing so. Particular circumstances (like wars with another nation) do impact on how the equity is applied.
Sorry If I have not been clear.
Sorry If I have not been clear.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 5:59 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
.or is it a privilege?
Maybe we should start there?
...and go.
It is definitely a privilege, with many qualifiers behind it.
We ain't the garbage can of the world.
We ain't the world, and we ain't the frickin people.
We are citizens of the United States of America that love our country, save a small few snowflakes that we are seeing on TV and posting on message boards.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News