Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Libertarianism is an ideal, but cannot be a reality in today's broken society. Because there are few values and moral standards left or taught, there are vast numbers of the lawless who would run amuk. That brand of liberty only belongs in a society of SELF monitored individuals. We no longer live in such a place.
You are speaking of an anarchist society, not libertarian.
You can buy a car, but if you don't have a license to drive, you can't drive the car. That is NOT violating your right to use your property. There's good reason to not allow unlicensed drivers to drive, just as there's good reason to not allow people who haven't been screened to come live in the US on their "land" just because they happened to be able to afford that land. That is no way to run an immigration policy.
To claim that disallowing people who aren't permitted to live in the United States the right to live on land they purchased is "big government intrusion" on property rights is a huge stretch, and doesn't exactly ring the alarm of trampled freedoms.
Driving a vehicle on someone else's property, in this case the collective property of taxpayers, is a privilege, not a right. I believe that anyone should be allowed to drive any vehicle on their own property without needing permission from the government.
How can you claim that disallowing ANY person from living on land they have purchased is NOT a trampling of their freedoms?
No, am just trying to contort that philosophy into our present society, and don't see how it can successfully be implemented, other than in a very limited fashion. There certainly would be anarchy without the myriad laws extant today, unfortunately. We are no longer a people capable of self governance, again very unfortunately.
Driving a vehicle on someone else's property, in this case the collective property of taxpayers, is a privilege, not a right. I believe that anyone should be allowed to drive any vehicle on their own property without needing permission from the government.
How can you claim that disallowing ANY person from living on land they have purchased is NOT a trampling of their freedoms?
Why are you so insistent that it's an inalienable "property right" to be able to live on land you purchase? Youre excusing a circumventing of immigration laws by creating a "land purchase loophole." That is and was CLEARLY NEVER intended by the Constitution, the founding fathers, or contemplated by any subsequent constitutional provision or decision touching citizenship.
Shouldn't it be the burden of the land purchaser to know whether or not they will be allowed to use their land as intended BEFORE they purchase it?
Seems to me if the foreigner used some common sense in the first place, they wouldn't have to worry about their "new found" property rights.
Tell you what.... if you buy land in the US, you are allowed to "live" on it as long as your VISA remains in effect.
Why are you so insistent that it's an inalienable "property right" to be able to live on land you purchase? Youre excusing a circumventing of immigration laws by creating a "land purchase loophole." That is and was CLEARLY NEVER intended by the Constitution, the founding fathers, or contemplated by any subsequent constitutional provision or decision touching citizenship.
Seems to me if the foreigner used some common sense in the first place, they wouldn't have to worry about their "new found" property rights.
Tell you what.... if you buy land in the US, you are allowed to "live" on it as long as your VISA remains in effect.
Again, this is the reason I directed this thread more toward fiscal conservatives and libertarians, those who support the concept of being able to use one's property without interference from the government. If one supports this, then I would contend that one must also support the same regardless of the person's country of origin. Those who believe that the governmnet SHOULD be able to dictate an individual's use of property will never support this view.
I'm not excusing a circumventing of immigration law, I'm proposing abolishing the law as a violation of individual property rights. Not only does this relate to land ownership, but to an employment contract between two consenting adults.
Quote:
Shouldn't it be the burden of the land purchaser to know whether or not they will be allowed to use their land as intended BEFORE they purchase it?
No. It should be the burden of the government to protect the rights of the land purchaser to be able to use the land he/she purchased as he/she sees fit, so long as he/she does not violate the property rights of others.
Thanks for all of the input. Here's the crux of the issue:
Why should Americans' rights be protected while the rights of immigrants are violated by the U.S. government?
BECAUSE they have no rights in this country, no more than I would have rights somewhere else. Their only right is to be deported, if they crossed over illegally. Do you think MEXICO would give ME rights, if I crossed over there and demanded my so-called "rights" in their country of which I was not a citizen?
How can you claim that disallowing ANY person from living on land they have purchased is NOT a trampling of their freedoms?
You can't "trample" on freedoms that don't exist. Foreign citizens are NOT free to do everything Americans can do, in the US. This, I think, is the mistake you're making in presenting your case. We don't deny 12-year olds the "freedom" to enter into legal contracts--that "freedom" doesn't exist.
In the broadest stretch of the term, I suppose ALL of us are denied many freedoms, every day. I, for example, am not free to practice medicine--or to enter the Ladies' Restroom---or to build a house in the middle of a city park, or to park in the 'handicapped' zone. But I don't think of these as "freedoms denied", in any realistic sense of the term.
The very fact that there ARE such designations as "citizens" and "aliens" speaks to the fact that, of course, inherent in these terms are differing levels and degrees of "rights".
I, and every American citizen, "own" the Nevada Test Site. Yet, were I to enter upon it, I would be subjected to immediate arrest and a jail sentence. A little problematic, perhaps, but I certainly can understand the purpose of such laws..
I agree, macmeal. Is nice to have the common sense to know one's own limitations, and not play the victim's rights card! I am all for the fewest laws/regulations possible to keep an orderly society. But as I keep stressing, we as individuals, seem not to have the self control to govern ourselves anymore. Hence, the piles and piles of laws and regulations at every turn. Is very distressing to say the least for one who is highly self governed and lives in integrity. But my self restrictions cannot be forced onto others who may think cheating, stealing, breaking and entering, murder, are okay, so long as they don't get caught. So we need the law enforcers for those with that criminal mentality.
When liberty is defined by property, only property holders are free.
Ah yes, what a world that would be. Jim Crow? Feudalism, anyone?
Property is still powerful. Freedom for all within a nation requires a temperance on the power of property, not a boost.
I think that's a quote but I can't remember who said it.
In any case the premise is erroneous. Liberty and freedom in an organized society is always limited, by definition, and has nothing to do with property unless you happen to be living in the 19th Century. The only alternative is Anarchy, which is politically unsustainable.
Free individuals make choices that nearly always interfere with the choices of other free individuals. Government restricts those choices, or at least minimizes the possibility of violent resolution to conflicts, which is why we sue people rather than kill them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Their only right is to be deported, if they crossed over illegally. Do you think MEXICO would give ME rights, if I crossed over there and demanded my so-called "rights" in their country of which I was not a citizen?
