Governor Ignores ACLU, Signs Anti-Immigration Bill

[lashicoN]

Hold on there Hoss, you have it backwards.

1. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant anything. It merely guarantees specific rights that have been so enumerated. This is not an inclusive list, as the rights of man are nearly limitless.

2. As rights are granted by God, or natural law, unto man; it applies to all mankind, regardless of national origin, citizenship, race, creed, religion, et al.

3. The constitution applies to all men, even those within this country unlawfully, subject to some qualification.

Certainly a foreign national shouldn't be deprived of life, simply for the fact that they are within this country without permission. Neither should one be prohibited the guarantee of the right to worship their God, for this same fact as well. The same applied to the rights guaranteed under 4A,. which states:

Nowhere within this language, does anything state that this right is guaranteed to only Americans. If it were, then any foreign national within this country with a visa, not to mention those here illegally, could be stripped searched and their homes searched daily without an inkling of cause.

However, I do acknowledge that a lesser standard of probable cause can apply to foreign nationals subject to deportation. While it may not be the same standard normally enjoyed by citizenship, save the exceptions of FISA, plain sight, exigent circumstance, etc; it is, none the less, a right guaranteed.

I don't see eye-to-eye with you on this one, what a surprise. This is one of the main issues where I disagree with most libertarians and my fellow INGO members.

The Bill of Rights indeed DOES grant us all of these rights. Why else is the United States the greatest country on Earth? Are you trying to say that China has just as many freedoms as Americans do, because all men have equal freedoms? If all countries had equal freedoms, then the US wouldn't stand out as it does. If all men truly had the freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms, then we wouldn't need the Bill of Rights. The world isn't at that point of evolution yet. As of now, rights aren't handed out by every government, they aren't even exercisable under most governments. Our government chose to GIVE us rights (rather, we chose to take them when we created a new government) in the form of the Bill of Rights. If the world, or even our piece of land, were truly free, then I would agree with you. But we live under governments, and as of now we are enslaved to them. Only governments can grant us freedom, even if that freedom already exists. Only they can grant it to us, because they have absolute power and can take those freedoms away. As long as this federal government governs the way they do now, if you're born in the United States, you aren't born free. Just thinking or saying you have rights doesn't make it so. Using those rights without consequence is the only proof that you have those rights.

The Bill of Rights, as well as the Constitution does only apply to Americans. We can't create laws for other countries, no matter how hard we try.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Not the people of Mexico, not the people of Cuba, not the people of El Salvador, the people of the United States. If you chose to come here illegally and skip the become an American part, that's your fault, and your loss.

 

[Fletch]

The existence of a right and the recognition of same are two different things.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[Fletch]

NSFW Language:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTOQhPd2Xh4]YouTube - Doug Stanhope on Freedom[/ame]

 

[E5RANGER375]

i will jump up and down when i see the buses full of illegals heading back to mexico with police cars as escorts. Until all the states jump on the band wagon they will just move on to the next state and start ravaging it. I cant wait till indiana passes similar laws and forces the LE in Indiana to address the illegal alien issue head on. keep your fingers ON the trigger boys!!!!

 

[lashicoN]

The existence of a right and the recognition of same are two different things.

I can completely agree with this. But a right that exists and isn't recognized by those in power is pretty useless.

It's kind of like having the government freeze your bank account. Your money is still there, it still exists and it's all yours, but you can't use it because the people with all the power say so. It sort of undermines everything.

 

[christman]

If ID is required, it's not a liberty, it's a license. Free people don't have to ask permission.

Let me know how that works out when you use that logic to walk into the white house to high-five some government officials. Or into a senate hearing to speak "freely" to your elected officials. Your free so you should be able to walk right in without a ID right? This isn't 1790, modification makes civilization. There just needs to be a socially accepted method to the madness.

 

[Fletch]

I can completely agree with this. But a right that exists and isn't recognized by those in power is pretty useless.

It's kind of like having the government freeze your bank account. Your money is still there, it still exists and it's all yours, but you can't use it because the people with all the power say so. It sort of undermines everything.

The point of insisting that governments recognize rights rather than granting them is to maintain the reality that governments are not the source of rights. The only relationship governments have to rights is the degree to which they violate them.

 

[Fletch]

Let me know how that works out when you use that logic to walk into the white house to high-five some government officials. Or into a senate hearing to speak "freely" to your elected officials. Your free so you should be able to walk right in without a ID right? This isn't 1790, modification makes civilization. There just needs to be a socially accepted method to the madness.

Spoken like someone who values Order more than Freedom.

 

[ATOMonkey]

If only government can grant freedom, why am I still able to do those things in the absense of government?

Government only has the power to deny freedom.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[lashicoN]

The point of insisting that governments recognize rights rather than granting them is to maintain the reality that governments are not the source of rights. The only relationship governments have to rights is the degree to which they violate them.

I think we are basically saying the same thing. Maybe I took it the wrong way.

I'm saying that in a free world, yes, government does not grant rights, because we are all equally free. But we don't live in a free world, or a remotely free world. We live in a world ruled by governments.

I'm sane, and just because jbusch says I'm stupid, doesn't make it so. I understand that with or without government the origin of rights does not change. It's always there no matter what, but when governments tell you that you do not have the right to keep and bear arms, and they take away all of the arms in the country, you insisting you have a right doesn't make a firearm appear. Governments may not grant rights, but if they have the power to take them away, isn't that basically the same thing? If they take away your right, haven't they just un-granted you that right? A right without the means of exercising that right isn't much of a right at all.

If we used this logic, it would be right for the United States to ban firearms and all weapons to us citizens. We still have the right to keep and bear arms though. Like I said, it isn't much of a right if you can't use it.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[Fletch]

A certain amount of order is required to assure freedom.

When appropriately implemented, Order is an emergent property of Freedom, rather than something that is imposed from above. Imposed Order is tyranny. Freedom produces Order when it is based on a proper understanding of the source and nature of Rights.

 

[christman]

Spoken like someone who values Order more than Freedom.

I value realism and the ability to adapt if necessary or fight if not. This government that you seem to disagree over your lack of freedom's made those original freedoms you so covet. The only thing that has changed is the society in which hold office at any given time, and twists its original intent to fit their norms.

I don't disagree with your idea about being free and not having to prove ID for anything, but I realize the root problem isn't the blamed one. Society as a collective have become fat and greedy. Losing any shred of self sacrifice they were instilled with in regards to freedom, and the preservation of it in the capacity it was originally intended and written. Then again, this country is so young in the span of time compared to other civilizations ruled under different ideals. I guess history will show which is better.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[Fletch]

I value realism and the ability to adapt if necessary or fight if not. This government that you seem to disagree over your lack of freedom's made those original freedoms you so covet.

Again, I disagree that government is the source of liberty, rights, freedom, or whatever else you wish to call it. It doesn't matter the government in question; all governments either infringe upon rights or refrain from doing so. They do not create them, and they have no positive relationship with rights whatsoever.

 

[Fletch]

I rather believe that it is a symbiotic relationship, whereas a balance is imposed from the cultural values of society. Order must be occasionally imposed as a necessary limit upon freedom for the good of the whole, just as order was or is occasionally necessary to be imposed by God unto his Earthly children.

You are welcome to believe as you wish, of course.

 

[SavageEagle]

Why? Why should an ostensibly free person of an ostensibly free society be required to prove anything? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If you think I'm illegal, you should have to prove that I came from elsewhere. I should not have to prove that I came from here.

In our society, you ARE innocent until proven guilty. However, if you cannot prove who you are, how are you to prove your innocence? Are you suggesting that no one should have to carry ID? With that in mind, if you cannot prove who you are, how can you prove your innocence?

If I'm charged with being an illegal, I have the burden of proof. Just as if I'm charged with bank robbery, I have the burden of proving my innocence. I may be innocent, but if I can't prove it, then in the eyes of the law, I'm guilty. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.