Register
A password will be e-mailed to you.

LISTEN TO TLR’S LATEST PODCAST:


By: Elias J. Atienza

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) said that the Constitution doesn’t “apply to people who have not yet come to our country” in an interview with Andrew Wilkow, host of the “Wilkow Majority.” Speaking on President Donald Trump‘s executive orders on immigration, Paul argued that the United States has the right to make any “immigration law.”

“So if you want to be an immigrant into our country, the Constitution doesn’t apply to you, and we have every right to make any immigration law we want,” Paul said. “Now a lot of us have the sensibility, myself included, that it shouldn’t be based on religion who is admitted to the country.”

Paul also said that it was almost impossible to properly vet refugees due to the instability of the region. In addition, he also noted that mass migration in Germany has not panned out well for the European state and that many of them were not coming from Syria, but from Afghanistan and Pakistan. While he conceded that some of them might be refugees, he said there was no way to actually verify it.

But one of the main concerns of Paul’s was the cost of resettling refugees in the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies released a study in 2015 saying that it costs around $64,370 to resettle refugees; however a report released by the Negative Population Growth Inc. in 2016 says that the cost is $19,884 to settle each refugee and asylum seeker by the federal government.

When he ran for President, Paul introduced legislation that would block the United States from issuing visas to refugees from 30 countries and subject French citizens to waiting periods unless they were a part of the Global Entry program.

“It’s about time, and Paris should wake us up that we can’t just let anyone come to this country,” Paul said in a conference call with reporters back in 2015. “Forty percent of immigration issues in our country are from visa overstays, and for those visiting us from countries that have large jihadist movements, this will be a bone of contention.”

Listen to a Part of the Interview Below:


WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

  • Don Bivens

    The Constitution applies to the states as it is an agreement between the states that establishes laws and a form of governance. Obviously this does not applies to most citizens nor immigrants.

    The Bill of Rights expresses a subset of all possible rights and that too is part of the Constitution. However, libertarians do not believe that government grants rights. We believe they are inherent in humanity- “natural rights”, or God-given. Neither a state not a piece of paper has the moral authority to grant or revoke rights.

    I love Rand, but he’s wrong here.

    • Steve Burrell

      Are you asserting that it is the absolute right of a person from anywhere in the world to be a citizen of the United States and that the United States cannot make a law that denies citizenship in the US?

      • John Ash

        No, dummy, but people have the right to migrate to any available spot on the world without being harmed.

        • Sloopyinca

          So you do not recognize private property ownership rights?

          • John Ash

            Land rights are separate from property that is created by man. The right to hold a piece of property is contingent upon its use, but is not to be assumed to trump the natural rights of others.

          • Sloopyinca

            Yeah, just as I thought. You have no concept of property rights if you think ownership is contingent upon use.

          • sloopyinca

            So let me see if I get this right. I buy 1000 acres from a guy that farms all of it. I remain in my primary residence and occasionally go to that ranch merely to relax once a year of so, never farming any of it.

            Since I’m not using it, when I show up and find theee trailers full of squatters on it, I have to give up the parcel they’re using?

            If you say yes, you don’t respect property rights. If you say no, you’re contradicting what you said about ownership being contingent on use.

          • John Ash

            Well, at some point, yes, that’s why squatter’s rights exist, though you should be able to sue for the value of the land. At a certain point, you have to defend your ownership and control of the land because the ownership of it rests in its use and productivity. That’s utilitarianism. This is different from something that you’ve created and can carry around.

          • sloopyinca

            Your utilitarian arguments fly in the face of libertarianism. If I rightfully own the property it is not your, the government’s or any other person’s business what I choose to do with it.

            My utility may not conform with what you think it should be, what those squatters think it should be, what a judge thinks it should be or what society in general thinks it should be. But it shouldn’t have to, because IT IS MY PROPERTY!

            Go away with your utilitarian garbage. Learn what property rights mean and how the NAP applies to them as strongly as they apply to a person. Once you recognize those basic premises, you will have a foundation for being a libertarian. Until then, you’re a utilitarian.

          • John Ash

            Land and property are no the same. This is Libertarianism 201. Seriously, read a book on how land rights are established.

          • John Ash

            BTW, dummy, my stance is libertarian, yours is utilitarian. Sheesh. It’s like I have to explain everything.

          • sloopyinca

            I’m going to seize an unused building at the end of a strip mall. It’s been unused for two years and the landlord is no longer collecting rent on it.

            I’ll do so peacefully to be sure I adhere to your principles of libertarianism. But since that owner is not using it, I am free to seize it. He can sue me for compensation, right?

          • John Ash

            Since the government handles property rights, you’d have to abide by their standards, but at some point, the government will condemn the property and put it up for sale.

          • John Ash

            This is why we don’t get to beat up or kill someone just for stepping on to your property or knocking on your door, or for passing through the property. But only on the occasion that there is an imminent threat to your life or property.

      • Don Bivens

        Nope

    • trapperrick

      Civil rights are not natural rights nor “god-given. They are established in law. For instance, there is no natural right to a trial by a jury of your peers. This is a construct of law.

      • Don Bivens

        Trial by jury of peers is not in fact a civil rights. It’s invented governmental nonsense.

    • Less Han

      I am not ashamed to admit that I am not a quick learner nor do I learn easily. With that said I have read your comment a few times and I am unable to find, even by your comment, how Rand Paul is wrong?

      • John Ash

        The Constitution does NOT give the Federal government the power to stop immigration in any way, and it is anti libertarian to say that people don’t have the right to move across borders peacefully.

        • sloopyinca

          Define peacefully.

          • John Ash

            With no intention to directly harm another person.

            If you were a libertarian, you’d not need to ask that question.

          • Sloopyinca

            I’m pretty libertarian, so I can do without you being an asshole. But I’m not an open borders guy until we abolish all forms of welfare and government support (for all, not just immigrants) that induce many free-riders to come here that would undermine liberty for others.

            And I consider someone “intending to directly harm” others if their purpose is to come here and undermine our freedoms by instituting a political system anathema to individual liberty (such as socialism, communism or a theocracy). Establishing a vetting process to ensure those people aren’t coming, once the welfare system is abolished, is a perfectly reasonable responsibility for a government.

            You sound a lot more like an anarchist than a libertarian. Not that there’s anything wrong with it, just stating an opinion.

          • John Ash

            Then you’re not a libertarian. Liberty isn’t an “if, then”. You are either for liberty, or you aren’t.

          • Sloopyinca

            Libertarians are not part of a strictly defined group that all check off the same boxes, idiot.
            There are pro life and pro abortion libertarians. Pro death penalty and anti death penalty libertarians. There are several areas where libertarianism occurs on a continuum. Some that believe a constabulary is just and some that only believe in private security services. Sorry that’s a fact that your mind might not be able to wrap itself around, but it’s a fact nonetheless.

            Let me know when you graduate from college and you come across libertarians of several stripes. And then let me know how hectoring those people with your no true Scotsman bullshit arguments is working out as a way to make friends and influence others.

          • John Ash

            So, you’re a “libertarian” that doesn’t believe in the non aggression principle, the natural right of migration, and the government is so important that people crossing an imaginary line is scary to your world view. Got it.

          • Sloopyinca

            Doesn’t believe in the NAP? You’re the one saying people cannot enforce private property rights merely because the person violating them is passing through.

            And I suppose you’re the arbiter of who the aggressor is when someone enters the property of another person? What if they damage the property? What if their passage takes longer that the property owner wants it to? What if they use resources,without the permission of the property owner?

            Your simplistic and incorrect understanding of property rights and the NAP are an insult to people that understand them.

          • John Ash

            Again, you don’t understand property rights. A person may pass through your property as long as they are not damaging it or threatening you by doing so. This assumes that the person has a valid reason for passing and there aren’t purpose built public roads for the purpose. This is why we have actual streets, that is how important the right of migration and movement is beyond the libertarian realm.

          • sloopyinca

            Define damage.
            Define valid reason.
            Define threatening.
            Define migration.
            Define movement.

          • John Ash

            Those are for the courts to decide if you feel you have been wronged. Moving pebbles as you walk is not damage. The need to get from point A to point B is valid. Threatening is what is reasonably construable to make for a threat on your life or property. Migration is the movement from one place to another. Movement, as in walking, biking, whatever gets you there. A blimp if you like.

          • sloopyinca

            So you’re resorting to what is “reasonable” or “in the eyes of” other people to determine some of these conditions you claim are absolute rights.
            Sounds pretty subjective to me.

          • John Ash

            Not really, that’s why land rights aren’t absolute. You have to be able to demonstrate damage in order to be compensated, just like any other court action. Just walking on your dirt road isn’t likely to get you a dime. Trampling your plants? Sure. You would have to prove it, but you can’t just shoot someone over it, which is what some “libertarians” think they get to do. In real libertarianism, you don’t get to harm people when they are not intending to harm you.

          • sloopyinca

            Furthermore, if they’ve walked through and didn’t realize they were walking all over my seedlings but have damaged my crop of a special hybrid wheat I was working on, how do I get compensated? I don’t realize the damage was done for weeks and they are long gone.

            I guess that’s just the price I pay for owning and using property in the wrong place at the wrong time, right?

          • John Ash

            Well, that’s why you need to put up a fence or mark it or have some vigilance. Whether it is legal or illegal, ethical or not ethical for them to trample your seeds, it doesn’t matter if you never knew it happened.

          • Sloopyinca

            Furthermore, national borders cannot exist in a place where liberty exists according to you. Am I also correct in assuming there are no commons in this world? And what about private property rights impeding someone from getting from Point A to their desired Point B? If the property owners between those points don’t want a trespasser, do their rights trump those of the peaceful person’s right to freely travel?

          • John Ash

            You clearly don’t understand the limits of property rights. You may control a piece of land economically, but you have no fundamental right to impede someone peacefully passing across it on the way to someplace else. This is a long understood principle in the country, and most farms have dirt roads that are open to the public for passage. The right of peaceful migration absolutely trumps land rights, as those are UTILITARIAN rights, not natural rights. Read a book, please.

  • Nathan J. Hickson

    Rights supercede the Constitution. Among those right is the right for peaceful people to travel without restraint or restriction.

    • Steve Burrell

      Well, just draw up that Constitution creating Utopia and we’ll all just move there. It’ll be grand, we won’t even need money. Everyone can just have whatever they need.

      • Less Han

        How about all of us Americans learn why and how this country was created. All of the problems we are having today is through generations of manipulating the contents within the Constitution and selfishly using it for their own agendas. Both parties have been guilty of doing this only because we do not know why they are not supposed to be doing the majority of things they have been doing. If we did learn it most of our problems would be solved. It is going to be very painful to get back on track but if we don’t it will be more painful.

      • John Ash

        We already did.

    • There is no such right to travel to the U.S.

      • John Ash

        Yes there is. The same rights existed before the US and will exist after.

    • Rosemary Richards

      Don’t think so! We are a SOVEREIGN NATION and a COUNTRY THAT IS MADE UP OF CITIZENS not IMMIGRANTS. As a SOVEREIGN NATION and CITIZENS THEREOF we HAVE A RIGHT to ALLOW OR NOT ALLOW ANYONE FOR ANY REASON! Try your right BS and go into NORTH KOREA and see what happens. Just tell him the BS you are trying to spew here.When or IF you get out of PRISON OR LIVE let us know how that turned out for ya!

      • Jeanne Marks

        So true Rosemary Richards! Let us know how that works out for you, if you survive.

        • John Ash

          Are you issuing a threat?

      • John Ash

        GTFO a libertarian page if you think that, dumbass. You are completely ignorant about the Constitution and the US. The US is NOT a “sovereign nation”. It is a republican federation, not a nation. And sovereignty is divided and the US doesn’t have any at all over immigration. Dumbshit.

        • sloopyinca

          Are you really saying the United States of America is not a sovereign nation?

          How do we not meet the following definition:
          Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

          • John Ash

            Not only am I saying it, but James Madison himself said it. We are a republican federation with 50 mostly sovereign member nations. See Federalist 39. Do you know what a federation is? Maybe you didn’t learn anything from Star Trek?

          • Sloopyinca

            The federal government, at the time it was written, were a Confederation. We became a federation shortly thereafter, at his urging by the way. His was an argument for a representative republic where the “rulers” were not there for life and a permanent aristocracy was outlawed.
            If you honestly believe we are a collection of 50 “mostly sovereign nations”, then you need to read the Constitution’s Article VI, Clause 2 and understand what Madison, Jefferson and the rest of their contemporaries envisioned. Sure they wanted a weak central government. But the one they envisioned still reigned supreme.

            I’m sorry, but you’re just flat-out wrong.

          • John Ash

            So you didn’t bother to read Federalist 39. Thanks for admitting that. Again, you seem to not understand what a federation is and why we have a “federal” government and not a “national” government. Sad, the pathetic level of education in this country.

          • Sloopyinca

            You never addressed Article VI Clause 2 OF THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION THAT WAS ENACTED but resort to Federalist 39. And yes, I’ve read it. I understand it in the correct context unlike you.

            You need to learn a lot, my friend. You are not a persuasive debater, you tend to badger rather than engage and your knowledge of the range within libertarianism is glaringly obvious to even a casual observer.

            Grow up, get educated and get better people skills. Then you’ll be better equipped to sell the broad libertarian message rather than your solitary vision of it.

            Good day.

          • John Ash

            Because there is no relevance to it, but do go ahead and ‘splain to me why you think it is relevant. I’ll wait.

          • Sloopyinca

            Lolololol. The constitutional scholar John Ash thinks Federalist 39 establishes our nation as a “republican federation” even bought it’s not a legal document. Meanwhile, he thinks the supremacy clause isn’t relevant to our form of government or the legislative hierarchy it established.

            We were established as a Representative Republic. We have been ever since ratification of the constitution. A constitution, by the way, which does include Article VI Clause 2 but does not include a single phrase of Federalist 39.

            You are so far out of your depth I’m starting to feel sorry for you. If you weren’t damaging the libertarian brand by being such an ass, I would just walk away. As it were, I’m like a moth to your flame of retardation.

          • John Ash

            No, dummy, it explains it for the idiots in the audience. Well, it tries, anyway. A Republican and Representative are redundant, dummy. The States are all Republics and they all belong to the Federation we call the United States of America.

            I always find it funny when people like you act like you know WTF you’re talking about .

          • Sloopyinca

            You need to read the constitution again. Because you have little understanding of it.

            Seriously, all kidding aside, you have no idea what you’re talking about and are conflating your wishes for what really is in the document.

          • John Ash

            Please explain the 10th Amendment and then please quote the delegated authority over immigration. Please quote the Founders talking about federal immigration control. Please explain why the South would sign the Constitution knowing that the Federal government had the power to come to their state with armed men and legally kick out their slaves as “illegal aliens”.

            I’ll wait.

          • sloopyinca

            Wait, are you one of those that thinks the 10th means only amendments have rule of law and everything else is the province of the states?

            I mean, I’m all for decentralization, but that doesn’t negate what the courts uphold as constitutional.

          • John Ash

            No, Article 1, Section 8 and others have power. But none offer power over immigration. Or prove me wrong. Quote it.

          • John Ash

            Show me the part where SCOTUS can simply claim that a law without delegated power is Constitutional. That is an abdication of checks and balance and is simply collusion to promote tyranny.

          • John Ash

            Also, please explain why it wasn’t until 1875 that we had our first federal immigration law and why it was instantly challenged in court and why the same basic group of people that said that blacks are property had to say “oh, sure, also, we can kick out the Chinese because they work hard”.

          • John Ash

            I love it when national socialists try to think.

          • Sloopyinca

            You might be the dumbest person I’ve ever met that tried,to pass their anarchy off as libertarianism. And I’ve seen some of the best trolls ever, so take it as a compliment.

            Now, please piss off and go read a few books. Start with “See Spot Run” and work your way up from there.

          • John Ash

            You have a lot of insults, but the last thing I am is an anarchist. That is how out of touch you are with reality. This from a person who doesn’t understand basic concepts of government.

    • Chuck Norris

      That’s not how it works, nathan.

      • John Ash

        But that’s how it is supposed to work.

        • Chuck Norris

          People dont have the right to travel with no restriction around the world from the moment they are born. Technically people aren’t born with any rights at all. The government they are in gives it to them, or they fight for them.

          • John Ash

            They did before government, dumbass. That’s the nature of natural rights.

          • Chuck Norris

            What statists websites? i am just using logic here. With no government they are not given rights because nobody can enforce their rights.

          • John Ash

            That is not the nature of the rights in the Constitution. They exist simply because you are a sentient being. People can and will violate them, but that does not mean they don’t exist. Government doesn’t give rights, it doesn’t take rights, it can only support them or ignore them. The Constitution is there to support natural human rights. These rights exist whether you are one, or one in a billion. They exist whether there is a government or whether there is anarchy.

          • Chuck Norris

            But nobody can give you rights because the idea of rights and law exists at the same time.

            The point about rights and law is a superior authoritarian force telling you what you could and couldn’t do and enforcing getting the rights that were remed. I dont know why you think that the sole existence means that you have rights to do whatever you want. You dont. You go a few million light years into space and its the same as being in space or in the middle of a sea with no country’s authority. Its a no mans land. No rights, no laws, no services. And even on top of that, what would you define a right? who created rights? what are those rights?

          • John Ash

            Natural human rights are those that humans have largely always done that directly harm no one else. The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. To grow a marijuana plant and smoke it. To buy a soda as big as someone will sell you. To buy the car you want, to buy the house you want.

          • Chuck Norris

            So the human rights are literally capitalism that someone said we could do?

            None of those mentioned stuff makes me believe that they would exist without a government or that we are entitled to them. Its all just stuff that became normal in the countries that most of us lives in.

          • John Ash

            That doesn’t even attempt to make sense. Have you ever read anything about libertarianism, or are you just a librul troll?

            Natural Rights defines the limits of government and ethics of power. Are you saying you don’t have the right to life if government doesn’t exist? You have the right to life because you are human and sentient.

          • Chuck Norris

            i GET what you are trying to say but you just dont get that you are still wrong.

            Yes. Rights to life dont exist if a government doesn’t exist. Its not a “right” then, its a natural instinct to survive. Being sentient doesn’t mean we are entitled to shit, and if there’s nothing saying that we have a right nor we have some authority to enforce that right, then there is no right to begin with.

          • John Ash

            You’re missing the point that this is a rational guide for ethical behavior and when you have the legitimate right to use force, whether government exists or not. It is simply the golden rule taken to its rational and empathic conclusion. You don’t get to tell me what to do or stop me from doing it unless I’m directly harming someone and vice versa.

            You clearly aren’t a libertarian as this is the absolute basis of libertarianism, if you don’t understand it, you aren’t a libertarian. Why are you here?

          • Chuck Norris

            because i am trying to understand you? unless you dont want me to understand your point.

          • John Ash

            I would suggest reading John Locke or just about anything else covering natural rights (not natural law).

            Without natural rights, there is no ethical structure for liberty, just random populist statism.

            I was looking for a good video, but have sadly not found any that meet my standards. There are no natural rights in the same way there is gravity. Gravity exists because matter exists. Natural Rights, however, only exist because we can conceive of them through RATIONAL EMPATHY. “I can think and feel, therefore other humans must be able to think and feel.” “I value my life, therefore, others must value theirs”. I do not want people to harm me or steal my creations or possessions, therefore, I assume others do not as well.” “I believe I have the right to make choices and actions, I assume others believe the same”. “I don’t want the choices and actions to directly harm me, so I assume they don’t want mine to harm them”.

            Natural Rights simply exist because we can reason them. It is a belief system, and ethical system, NOT a “fact” or “law”, but a way of defining behavior, not as “moral” or “immoral” but as “ethical” or “unethical”. IOW, if I believe I have the right to choose what I put in my body or how I have sex or whatever, it is not ethical for me to say someone else may not do. Moreover, I cannot simply deny people their actions simply because I don’t like them for myself, lest others deny my actions simply because they do not like them. I don’t get to ban homosexuality, lets homosexuals band together and ban heterosexuality. In fact, something that is unethical doesn’t become ethical simply because more people believe it. Popularity is irrelevant. Fear is irrelevant. It is a rational philosophy. It is a “what is good for the goose is good for the gander” meets “the golden rule” philosophy. But it works because it is tested and coherent and consistently is defensible. One cannot say “I get to ban all Muslims” because I have a fear that one of them may be violent, not the least of which is because all humans have the potential to be violent, and it is an individual trait, not a group one. You can’t say “well, he MIGHT”. Why? Because no one wants to have their rights taken or be put in jail because someone simply fears them. Someone doesn’t get to take my gun simply because they are afraid of guns.

            Obviously, you can have the right to life and property and someone will kill you and take your stuff anyway, but that makes their action unethical and punishable, as well as allows you to use your right to self defense IF you are in reasonable fear of your life (nor irrational fear of your life). If someone is breaking into your home, you have the right to defend yourself. It doesn’t give you the right to “defend” yourself because someone else crosses an imaginary line that doesn’t directly pertain to you UNLESS they are doing so with the the intention to harm you directly. Because just looking for a job or a new place to live or going to visit your children is NOT a direct harm to anyone and you reserve that same right for yourself.

            If you don’t understand what I just said, if you think you like libertarianism or freedom at all, then you really need to start to read Locke or Spooner or Bastiat until you get it.

          • Chuck Norris

            So natural rights are not exactly actual rights but rather social instinct of survival?

            I thought you actually meant there was an unwritten right laws for sentient creatures.

          • John Ash

            No. Natural Rights are the COMMON (universal) understanding of the limits of individual behavior. It is what everyone can agree to for themselves. The difference is that a statist doesn’t recognize that others should have the same respect as they expect. A statist holds that is okay to harm OTHERS for behavior they don’t like, but would be angered if that harmed them. Michlangelio said that David was what was left when he carved away the excess marble. Natural Rights is what remains when you carve away violence and tyranny.

          • Chuck Norris

            But wouldn’t that mean that “natural rights” are but an idea of what everyone should be entitled to? and wouldn’t your idea of a statist be more similar to that of fascism?

          • John Ash

            Natural Rights entitles no one, it is the theory of “negative rights” (I despise this term). It is the limit on the actions of others because it harms others without just cause. Defense is not the same as offense. A statist is a bully who implores the power of the state. Fascism is essentially the ultimate expression of that, though it comes in all forms. A statist says “this person can’t do this, regardless of whether it harms me or anyone else” and “this person must do this because it’s good for society and others”.

          • Chuck Norris

            Ok. I am glad we had this conversation.

            I still disagree with you, but i get your point a lot better than before.

          • John Ash

            Cool But even if you disagree with the idea of Natural Rights, that is ACTUALLY the basis of our Constitution and Bill of Rights more specifically. It is important to know and understand EVEN IF you think it is hooey. Because without that, you can’t understand the Constitution itself and so it all gets confusing. This is why we have statism. We don’t teach natural rights in school.

          • John Ash

            You seem to ascribe more to Nietzsche’s Superman theory, that might makes right, that you have no rights except that you can enforce on others by your own power. That is literally survival of the fittest. Natural Rights says that the biggest dog doesn’t get to attack the smallest dog because the biggest dog would be the first hypocrite when a bigger dog attacked him. Natural rights see people as equal because they are sentient and belong to a sentient species, EVEN IF they are also less powerful of mind or body. A libertarian applies his philosophy to all people, even those that are passionate non-believers, even those who are incapable of understanding it. That my neighbor doesn’t understand natural rights does not give me additional power over him or the power to ignore his natural rights, just because he doesn’t know he has them.

            Natural Rights is the basis of the Declaration of independence and the Constitution and also called “inalienable rights”. They are inalienable because they are natural and not given by government.

          • John Ash

            You don’t have any idea how rights are and need to go back to your statist websites.

    • Delphinus13

      The Constitution is the founding documents that clearly codifies our rights. The Constitution limits the power of the government. It also clearly states that Congress and the President have a duty to protect the citizens, and that includes determining who is allowed to come in to our country.

      The baffling thing is when Supreme Court justices and others try to cite international law when making decisions. International Law is absolutely 100% irrelevant when determining whether a law or court case complies with our Constitution. That is the SCOTUS’s sole responsibility, determining Constitutionality.

      • Jeanne Marks

        We are clearly within or rights to determine who can come into this country!

        • John Ash

          Please back that up with an explanation under libertarian theory or with quotes from the Constitution. I’ll wait.

          • sloopyinca

            We aren’t arguing libertarian theory. We are arguing the rights of the federal government as the constitution is written.

          • John Ash

            They are essentially identical for this subject. The Feds have no ethical or delegated authority in the matter by design and you can’t prove otherwise.

          • sloopyinca

            Except immigration agreements between nations are effectively treaties.

            Which takes us back to Article VI Clause 2.

          • John Ash

            There is no power of a government to say that you can’t leave, nor that you can’t come. Making a treaty out of it doesn’t make it any more valid. Aside from this, it is extremely rare to have a treaty over immigration. We first did that with China which is how the Feds staged the theft of immigration control. We have no treaty with Mexico, for instance, over immigration and even if we did, it still isn’t valid per our Constitution because the Feds can only make a treaty that pertains to its delegated powers, such as commerce or defense.

          • sloopyinca

            A treaty is an agreement between nations. Establishing the process by which people from one nation enter another is definitely a treaty.

          • John Ash

            There are few, if any of such treaties in place and in any case, the Feds have zero authority to make a treaty concerning migration because it doesn’t fall under defense or commerce.

          • Delphinus13

            U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9 respecting Congressional Authority:

            Section. 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

            Additionally, Congress passed Title 8 Chapter 12 of the U.S. Code which gives the President this authority.

            (a) Restrictions and prohibitions

            Unless otherwise ordered by the President, it shall be unlawful—

            (1) for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe;

            (2) for any person to transport or attempt to transport from or into the United States another person with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that the departure or entry of such other person is forbidden by this section;

            (3) for any person knowingly to make any false statement in an application for permission to depart from or enter the United States with intent to induce or secure the granting of such permission either for himself or for another;

            (4) for any person knowingly to furnish or attempt to furnish or assist in furnishing to another a permit or evidence of permission to depart or enter not issued and designed for such other person’s use;

            (5) for any person knowingly to use or attempt to use any permit or evidence of permission to depart or enter not issued and designed for his use;

            (6) for any person to forge, counterfeit, mutilate, or alter, or cause or procure to be forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered, any permit or evidence of permission to depart from or enter the United States;

            (7) for any person knowingly to use or attempt to use or furnish to another for use any false, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered permit, or evidence of permission, or any permit or evidence of permission which, though originally valid, has become or been made void or invalid.

          • John Ash

            Incorrect, nice try for a novice though. That is the “slave importation clause” and was heavily discussed in detail on August 22, 1789 as I recall and you can read all about it on line, in which they discussed how importing slaves was a threat to the free immigration of Europeans because it was, aside from being immoral, it made jobs unavailable to paid workers.

            Not even SCOTUS thinks anything that ludicrous.

          • Marquis the Renegade

            Actually its the “islamic, asian, african migrants or countries we are war with” clause where basically its there to prevent America from becoming a third world shit hole. It never lost any of its relevance to protecting us from people with incompatible or hostile beliefs towards America and our way of life. Now they would merely exploit our welfare scheme and then protest about the lack of sharia law, too many homosexuals or atheists walking around and no halal certification.

          • John Ash

            Well, then Congress needs to define the war, define the enemy and THEN block THOSE people. Are we at war with Mexicans? Canadians? Africa? China? Japan?

          • John Ash

            Still waiting for you to mount an argument. Changing the subject to land ownership is not an argument. Typical librul statist argumentation.

          • John Ash

            I accept your surrender.

          • sloopyinca

            Sorry, it wasnt a surrender. I just got really busy working an a libertarian website that actually got traffic.

            I’m sure you’ll be there eventually. If you’d like to know more about it, let me know.

          • John Ash

            I really don’t have any interest in libertarians who don’t understand the Constitution because they don’t understand Natural Rights or libertarianism. Thanks for the offer though, spread misinformation as you wish.

          • sloopyinca

            And I don’t have time for a closed-minded mongoloid that plays “no true Scotsman” in every comment thread.
            Enjoy talking to yourself. I’ll go engage with the 170 people that have registered at my site in the first 7 days it’s been in operation.

          • John Ash

            Wow. 170 whole people. That’s like, wow, OMG. Pushing nonsense to the ignorant. What a novel idea, no one has ever thought of it before. Good luck trying to be somebody important.

          • sloopyinca

            I doubt you’d fit in well. We all have open minds and an open discussion. It’s full of professionals: doctors, lawyers, inventors, engineers, businessmen, etc. and we don’t tolerate trollish behavior.

            And when you create something that takes 50% ofmtebtraffic from the leading libertarian website in a week, you might be able to chime in. Until then, enjoy talking to yourself and swaying nobody.

          • John Ash

            That’s nice. Buh buh now.

          • sloopyinca

            Back to your trolling? Enjoy it. I’ll go back to my opinion mattering to people that matter to me.

            Toodle-doo, Gimli.

          • John Ash

            Alrighty, good luck with that.

      • John Ash

        Please quote the passage that you thinks backs you up.

    • Jeff Steinbock

      Uhhhhh, No your Rights don’t supersede the Constitution. That is called Anarchy.

      • John Ash

        No, that’s called a civil society.

    • Bob Jonhson

      Are you f*cking ignorant?

      • John Ash

        No, he isn’t, but you seem to be.

        • fox_whisper85

          So sorry you haven’t sucked guys off enough

          • John Ash

            Your blatant homophobia is duly noted.

    • Sons of Liberty

      And how do you know who is peaceful and who isn’t? There is no way to properly vet a person from a country that has very little open avenues to run a full background check. The only way to do it is with boots on the ground, asking questions from friends and family of the person…dating back to the time of youth…sort of like they do secret clearance checks in the U.S.

      • John Ash

        “I’m scared, that’s why I get to deny your rights!!!”

        • Sons of Liberty

          I’ve served in combat with the Marine Corps…and I served as a federal agent for 25 years. But, I do not want scum from the islamic world coming in and making my home a shit like they do in every city they populate.

          • John Ash

            So what? I don’t want my neighbor to paint his house purple. But the Feds have no more power over that than they do over immigration. “Scum” typically don’t pick up and move to a place they hate. They move to a place that gives them hope and opportunity.

            It’s really sad that we have Marines that don’t know shit about the Constitution. How can you defend something you don’t even understand?

          • Sons of Liberty

            Over 100,000 are sitting in our jails and prisons because of illegal activity. In my profession, Border Patrol, I arrested one criminal after another. One out of every five illegal aliens that enters the U.S. has a criminal record from a previous time in the U.S….that is absolute fact. And we have no idea what their record was in their homeland.

          • John Ash

            So put them in jail for a crime against someone, not an imaginary crime like crossing a line. Borders exist to contain government, NOT people. For a lot of these people, their own “crime” was crossing an imaginary line before.

          • Marquis the Renegade

            If you think borders are imaginary your wrong. It was put there by generations of people who fought and died to create America what it is. And to tame the harsh land to begin with for several decades to make it hospitable to future generations. The US is the collective conscience of the people in many ways, if it wasn’t then there wouldn’t have been 90-95% white European demographics and European immigration only for over 180 years.

          • John Ash

            Your thinly disguised racism is almost charming.

          • Marquis the Renegade

            People are racist, we discriminate based on race – even if we don’t mean to.

          • John Ash

            For which unConstitutional federal agency did you serve, BTW?

      • John Ash

        How do we know which gun owner is peaceful and which are not? We need to stop all gun owners!

        • Sons of Liberty

          Those who are not peaceful do not purchase them legally. Second, our Constitution gives people the right to protect themselves from criminal scum and from brutal government regimes.

          • John Ash

            Right, so you can defend yourself from a “scum immigrant” whenever they try to harm you. No one is stopping you. You just don’t get to deny them their rights because you’re a hateful jackass.

          • Sons of Liberty

            I spent 25 years arresting illegal aliens. There is a difference between a bonafide immigrant and an illegal alien. One asked permission to enter legally – the other didn’t. Refugees are in another category, and should be held in a camp until properly vetted. If vetting is not possible, send them back.

          • John Ash

            Well, you spent 25 years being a Constitution hating asshole then. Good for you, I guess. You’re unAmerican, anti-Constitution and unChristian.

    • Jeanne Marks

      PEACEFUL being the operative word! The people coming her now are not peaceful!

      • John Ash

        None of them? Please. Maybe one in 100 are arguably not peaceful. You don’t know how rights work.

    • John Ash

      To be fair, the Constitution backs up natural rights, no matter what idiots like Rand Paul say.

    • sloopyinca

      Define “peaceful”. Then we can talk about unfettered movement for those people.

  • Scott Sorrell

    Rand brings up costs. I would counter that with the Pottery Barn rule that Gen Powell warned about before the disastrous invasion of Iraq. So Iraq gets destroyed on a pack of lies about WMD’s, sponsoring al-queda and connection to 9/11. All false. The Inspector General of the Pentagon traced down the source of the faulty intel / falsified intel and found it to be Doug Feith’s Office Of Special Plans, under Wolfwowitz. Also working in that office was Larry Franklin who got caught passing classified info to 2 members of AIPAC, Rosen and Weissman. The rest of the report should have been front-page news. It was not. The US supported Libyan rebels, after they had declared allegiance to al-queda, to topple Quadaffi. The US supported al-Nusra, after they had declared allegiance to al-queda, to topple Assad. So why should Europe have to shoulder the heaviest burden of refugees fleeing the war-ravaged Middle East when it is failed US policy that has created these crises? For the US to not take in refugees means we get a pass, and the US should not get a pass, nor the neocons that pushed the agenda in Iraq as early as 2002. We spent trillions for this mess. We should help clean it up. The costs of resettling refugees is a pittance compared to what has already been wasted.

    • michael edwards

      Very good stats, when you stand way back an realize the real big plan of managing wars and movement, flow of masses, and therefore changing the world, as it has been done before, it becomes way easier to see the real plot of the destruction of Democracy. Therefore taking control of the whole world. While bimbo’s
      fight all the small fires and don’t have a clue. Been done before! Sacrifice anything for the end result. The money makers, just might be!

    • Julie S

      All started with Bill Clinton.. Bill Clinton made the State of Union speech in Feb 1998, telling Americans how important to do something about Iraq’s WMD and would need to go into Iraq and so something with Saddam.. From there, Bush used Clinton’s on same lies to go into Iraq in 2002. Both Bush and Clinton altogether in it.. You can watch Bill Clinton ‘s State of Union Speech ( Feb 1998 on WMD on youtube

      • scottiefromlafayette

        Well Madeleine Albright was asked if the sanctions against Iraq in the 1990’s were worth it, given that more than 500,000 Iraqi women and children had died as a result of the US sanctions on Iraq, and she said that it was worth it. That is a half-million people dead because of a questionable policy, and the US Secretary of State said it was worth it … In 1953, the US took down an elected, democratic leader in Iran and installed the crooked and subservient shah. Iranians, after 26 years of corruption from their US puppet, overthrew the shah in 1979. They took US hostages in 1979, fearing another coup sponsored by the US. What did we do? We supported Saddam Hussein and gave him chemical weapons and encouraged an Iran-Iraq war which lasted 8 years and killed hundreds of thousand of people, on both sides. How did the US repay Saddam for fighting a proxy war against an “enemy”, born out of terrible policy? Three years after that war was over, the US led an invasion against Iraq (Glaspie surprise). Going back, Truman was asked to intervene by Churchill, on behalf of English oil interests, to overthrow Mossadegh, and wisely he declined. The coup was found to be acceptable under Eisenhower. Then in 1979, the Iranians became the bad guys. So big picture, from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (where the official story says 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 came from and yet Saudi Arabia was not in the list of the immigrant ban …) US policy has failed. Failed miserably. We have directly overthrown democratic regimes, we have subverted dozens of elections by throwing money at pro-US candidates, we have tolerated military dictatorships that have overthrown democratic regimes (Pakistan : Musharraf/Bhutto), we have allowed war crimes to be perpetrated with US dollars and US weapons (Israel), we have supported “terrorists” in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria. One day they are, and the next day they are “freedom fighters”. What has the US gained from all this carnage, blowback, and immoral policy? Lost treasure, lost prestige, decline in the American brand, and now innocent US citizens could be victims of terrorism because their government has done these things. The policy is bad, unconstitutional, and runs against the golden rule of Christianity. Our founders warned against “entangling alliances”. Wilson won the presidency on a platform on US non-intervention into European affairs and then we fought two world wars in Europe? Sorry for the absurdly-long response, but we are where we are after 100 years of bad policy and NOT following the parameters/guidelines/constraints of the Constitution. It is not just Clinton and Bush …

    • David Jones

      Really, we supported al Nustra AFTER they declared allegiance to al Qaeda? I think you need to reread the group’s timeline. Organized in 2012 and by November of 2012 was listed as a terrorist organization by the West. So I kind of find your comment a little suspect and lacking in true information.

      • scottiefromlafayette

        The group’s name is “al-Nusra” and not “al Nustra” so your first sentence leaves a lot to be desired. And yes, the facts are out there and well-established ; Lindsey Graham and John McCain offered support (material aid and financial aid) to this group AFTER they had declared allegiance to al-queda. Many critics said that it would not be wise to give support to this type of rebel group, because the US did similar things in Libya, after the US decided to support rebel groups, AFTER many of their members had declared allegiance to al-queda. We did it anyway! I am sorry that you are not familiar with this factual record, but it is easily obtained.

    • David Jones

      but then, back in 2003, Saddam was not supposed to have SCUD missile capabilities either, but he sure as hell shot 2 into the Gulf. of course they missed, but he should not have had them after the 1991 Gulf war. So it stands to ask the question, did he have the weapons and hid them (which they DID find a remnant of in the north of Iraq) or was the intelligence raw data not properly investigated? Of course, remember this is also the same intelligence communities that we had investigating allegations at the end of 2016.

    • DP Serafine

      Maybe….because the American people….who had no say in what the government did….do not want to die…,.there is a glaring omission of evidence in your post as well….always a sure sign there is more than meets the eye…

    • Sparta of Phoenix AZ

      Umm….How many people were being killed in Iraq before we went in, politics aside? How many men did we lose and riches lost trying to rebuild their damn country for them? That aside…You keep using US? Who is that, the American People? So our government makes huge blunders, we suffer the cost of rebuilding these places to include our families and now we must take them in at no end simply for that reason? That is probably the most asinine reasoning I have ever heard…

      Hey, maybe that was always Obama’s plan with the ME, just create need that we would have to import because I can’t think of any other reasoning…Iraq? I am sorry, we paid heavily and are still paying heavily…Time these people build their own damn countries…You don’t fix their issues by importing them…They have always been poor and desolate, LONG before we got there…

      • Scott Sorrell

        Your comments are very amusing and also sad at the same time, and completely illogical. So do you think the US went into Iraq to prevent Iraq from killing innocent people? No, that has nothing to do with the reasons for the invasion. The invasion of Iraq was a policy put forth by the neocons around Bush. All of the reasons given in 2002-2003 unraveled like bad twine in 2006-2007 when Americans learned that the war effort was based on lies, propaganda, and distortions that nimrods like YOU accepted. I bet you cannot tell the other listeners here why the US sent 130,000 soldiers to Iraq in 2003 when the NIE said the nexus of al-queda/Taliban was in Afghanistan and we sent 2200 US soldiers there to fight the “war on terror”. Please update us with your take on why this happened …

        • Simon the Sowetan

          Scott, read Sparta’s comment, “You keep using US? Who is that, the American People? So our government makes huge blunders, we suffer the cost of rebuilding these places to include our families and now we must take them in at no end simply for that reason” The whole middle east is a disaster caused by politicians of all ilk’s. This should not give you a guilt complex.
          Be very careful what you wish for, you might get it. They, Muslims, do not want to assimilate, they want to transform every society they integrate to their way of life.
          Do the research.

        • John Ash

          Actually, that was one of the three listed reasons.

        • Romney Meredith

          Jesus. The arrogance of the ill-informed is astonishing. Meaning you.

          • scottiefromlafayette

            I read both of your comments, from Scott Sorrell and Romney Meredith, and everything Scott Sorrell said was correct and you said absolutely nothing that advanced the discussion, apart from ad hominems and non sequiturs, which are not valid at all. Can you say anything to rebut what Scott Sorrell said in his post, Romney Meredith? Are you just talking out of your anus? He seems well-informed to me and you seem to be the one who is not informed at all. Please come back with a valid response, Romney.

    • Sons of Liberty

      The war in Iraq was on-going from 1991 to OIF. Operation Desert Storm had a Cease-Fire, but allied planes patrolled the No-Fly Zones in order to keep Saddam from killing all of those who opposed his dictatorship. Many times during the period before OIF ensued, his soldiers attacked planes in the NFZ’s, and bombing raids were conducted to hit Saddam’s troops. The war in Iraq began when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.

  • John Sarsfield

    He is correct.

    • John Ash

      I’ll give you $1B if you can find where he is correct in the Constitution itself.

      • John Sarsfield

        Do you have $1B? Because I’m thinking you probably don’t.

        • John Ash

          Can you prove that it matters? Nope.

      • TincanJoey

        We the People of the UNITED STATES….sounds pretty exclusive to me.

        • John Ash

          1. Those are the people creating the Constitution.

          2. That fact, in no way, prevents the country from being open to immigrants.

          3. The same people purposefully imbued to immigration power to the Federal government.

          4. The Preamble is nothing more of a preface and has no actual weight of law, in case you think it does.

          5. The Constitution persistently talks about people, and only rarely citizens.

          6. We have a federation, not a nation.

          • Sloopyinca

            4. The Preamble is nothing more of a preface and has no actual weight of law, in case you think it does.

            Says the yo-yo ignoring Article VI Clause 2 but preaching that Federalist 39 created a legally-binding system of government.

            Dude, you need a new gig. Internet troll isn’t working too well.

          • John Ash

            You still can’t explain the relevance of Article VI. I’ll still wait. Your argument is little more than neo-con talking points at best.

          • Sloopyinca

            You need it explained how a statement in our founding document establishing that Constitutional amendments, duly enacted (and judicially upheld) federal laws and treaties made by the FEDERAL government be the supreme law of the land is relevant. And you still don’t think we are a sovereign nation, even though that clause establishes federal supremacy in all laws duly enacted and upheld by the Courts?

            Come on, man. Amateur hour is over. This isn’t neo-con. It’s originalist and accepted as classically liberal (i.e. libertarian).

          • John Ash

            Sure, what does that have to do with immigration? Was there an Amendment covering immigration? Do you know what “under the Authority of the United States” even means? Apparently not. It means they have to have the power to make the law in order for it to be “supreme”.

          • John Ash

            I mean, by your ignorant standard, every single law ever made is perfectly Constitutional. The Democrats would love to have a legal scholar like you on board.

          • Sloopyinca

            Except we have laws ruled unconstitutional all the time. Hence the “judicially upheld” requirement after a law being duly passed.

            Can you even read clearly while in this fever dream? Or should you rest until you sweat it out and you stop not seeing plainly written sentences?

          • John Ash

            It literally says that Federal laws MUST follow the Constitution here – “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ”

            I’m missing the part where it says that SCOTUS can make unConstitutional laws Constitutional by simple majority vote.

            So, the question is, can you read at all?

          • John Ash

            Still waiting on your explanation of article VI Clause 2.

  • Pounce de Leon

    The question is nowhere near as simple as “yes” or “no”. The constitution grants certain rights only to citizens, such as the right to vote. But in most cases the constitution does not specify that a right applies to a citizen permanent resident,etc. Such questions are handled by the courts on a case by case basis.

  • Pingback: Here Is What Republican Critics of Trump’s Immigration Order Are Saying | Droolin' Dog dot Net()

  • Sparta of Phoenix AZ

    I am going to have to go with the CIS report on the cost of importing Refugees…They have been on this topic for some time and account for a lot of the avenues said financing comes from that NPG doesn’t…

    So folks, in 2016 alone you can expect to spend 7 billion on the 110,000 refugees Obama brought in alone that year over the next 5 years…That is a lot of money that could have been spent on the homeless here, Veterans and hey, transporting and resettling the people of Chicago’s worst neighborhoods…It just makes fiscal sense to care for refugees in a local capacity…The rest is just political correct bull…

    • Jeanne Marks

      All of the money spent on the 110,000 refugees that were brought here this past year could have been spent taking care of the homeless and the Veterans in our own country!

      • John Ash

        Very socialist of you.

    • John Ash

      Mighty socialist of you, comrade.

  • Getoffmylawn

    The American Constitution and the Bill of Rights are only for AMERICAN CITIZENS. If you are not an American Citizen, you have no rights or protections under those documents. It really is that simple.

    • Michael Chirani

      This is incorrect. Everyone in the U.S. is protected by the Constitution. Otherwise police would simply be able to search the home of a lawful resident without a warrant.

      Paul is correct, however, that the Constitution does not apply to would-be immigrants outside of this country. Once they arrive here, however, they enjoy a certain number of constitutional protections that are afforded to citizens.

      • John Ash

        If does apply to the US government if they are trying to harm people in other countries. The Constitution doesn’t apply to people, but the government.

    • John Ash

      Idiot. Read the Bill of Rights and tell me where you see the words “American Citizens”. Goddamned ignorance here is off the fucking charts.

  • James Bondish

    Certainly we foreign invaders are trying to USE IT AGAINST US.

    • John Ash

      “foreign invaders”. Like the guy who cleaned my backyard of construction debris?

      • James Bondish

        Depends.

        • John Ash

          I know, right? The guy cleaned up my yard for $50. It was truly scary.

  • John Ash

    Rand is a fucking idiot. He is a Constitutional idiot and he is a terrible libertarian. The Constitution doesn’t apply to people, it applies to government and the Feds have zero authority to stop someone from coming into the US unless they are here to try to topple the government or directly harm someone.

  • Anna S.

    Clearly, Rand Paul and many Americans are not informed about the Constitution. Multiple Supreme Court Cases have upheld certain Constitutional rights of both legal immigrants (green card holders) and people who are here undocumented, particular the right to due process or equal protection under the law. Please refer to Plyer V. Doe, Wong Wing Vs United States, even so far back as 1886 in Yick Wo V. Hopkins and the multiple other Supreme Court cases that have addressed this matter
    .

    • John Ash

      And that is even after they unConstitutionally approved the stolen power to regulate immigration at all in 1875. A power they just literally imagined in the Constitution as hidden in “emanations and penumbras”, that “sovereign nations” simply have by default, ignorant of the fact that the US isn’t a nation, but a federation of nations.

  • Rocketman

    In the past 40 years or so any war that drags the United States into it is the result of the Neo-Cons falsifying evidence and lying to those in power sitting on the fence in order to drag the country into another conflict resulting in the death of American servicemen and women.
    Neo-Cons by the way are not even real republicans. They are really pro-war democrats from the Henry (Scoop) Jackson side of the fence. Jackson was a democrat from the Washington State district that Boeing covered. When the hard left took over control of the democrat party back in the late 70’s they migrated to the republican party because they knew that the ultra liberal democrats would kick them off of any position of power. That got us into one conflict after another to support the military industrial complex.

  • John Ash

    Amazing how quickly a bunch of Paulbots cheer statism and the denial of rights. It’s time to change the name to The Trump Republic.

  • Tatiana Covington

    If so, will it apply to US astronauts on Mars?

43K Shares
Share43K
+112
Tweet
Pin1
Share4
Stumble