"Enforce the existing laws"

in immigration •  2 years ago 

Bad arguments don't help your side.

For example:

"Why is enforcement of existing immigration laws, laws which have been a standard for decades, such a divisive issue? Most countries in the world have stringent immigration laws, why is it that America is not allowed to enforce similar laws? Why does the left in particular consider the removal of illegal immigrants representative of 'racism' or 'fascism?' I realize they are mostly insane, but I would just like to hear one valid and practical argument from them as to why the U.S. specifically should be saddled with wide open borders and why American conservatives in particular are racist merely for demanding that the current laws be followed?" ~ Brandon Smith

Let's substitute one Big Government lust, "control" of guns, for "control" of "borders":

"Why is enforcement of existing gun laws, laws which have been a standard for decades, such a divisive issue? Most countries in the world have stringent gun laws, why is it that America is not allowed to enforce similar laws? Why does the right in particular consider the removal of illegal guns representative of 'tyranny' or 'socialism?' I realize they are mostly insane, but I would just like to hear one valid and practical argument from them as to why the U.S. specifically should be saddled with easy access to guns and why American progressives in particular are tyrants merely for demanding that the current laws be followed?"

Because "laws" that are wrong, are wrong. Even if you believe they are "necessary". Even if bad guys would take advantage of the situation if the "law" didn't exist or wasn't enforced.

Even if you believe the Constitution has any "authority", whatever isn't specifically permitted for government to do is expressly forbidden. Nowhere in the Constitution is "immigration control" permitted, so it is an illegal act by the federal government to "control immigration".

Now, government is also similarly forbidden to import "refugees" or otherwise bring people into America, so that's not the issue at hand.

Yes, the Second Amendment specifically places guns beyond the (legal) reach of "laws", but it was unnecessary to do this, since that power wasn't mentioned anyway (and it would have been a rights violation even if the Constitution allowed it)- and the Second Amendment has been utterly powerless against the will of the bullies in Congress and the BATFEces to just go ahead and do what they want.

Whether "immigration" (not a real thing anyway) is a good idea or not, the argument made by Mr. Smith above simply doesn't hold water. It's a purely statist argument, and as such, is nonsense.

Image
It's still a prison wall even if you can't see it

.

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Any donations or subscriptions would be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

whatever isn't specifically permitted for government to do is expressly forbidden.

So since rape is not mentioned in the Constitution, the government can't punish rapists???

·

The feds can't. Not legally.
Local governments could, but if you look to government for "justice" you are in for a surprise. (And punishment IS NOT the same thing as justice, by the way. Although many people have come to confuse the two.)
Governments can't have any power you don't have as an individual. If you don't have a right to do something yourself, you can't delegate that "right" to a gang- not even if you call that gang "government". And, if you do have a right to do something, why waste time and money on a government to do it? It's silly.