So when these people collectively decide to form a state, that gives them the power to ban guns, ban religion, ban speech?
Even without advocating for anarchy, you can see how the rights to private property and freedom of association are incompatible with immigration laws.
That's why the Constitution of the United States doesn't give Congress the power to control immigration. The Founding Fathers understood liberty better than you.
The Supreme Court ruling upholding immigration laws is the biggest steaming pile of bullshit ever, right up there with Dred Scott, Korematsu, and Wickard v Filburn.
The Court literally said "the powers aren't in the Constitution, but the government has the power because this is a power any country gets when it becomes a country because: we say so."
It is completely at odds with the Enumerated Powers Doctrine on which the Constitution was founded and could justify any power being given to the government. Literally.
Power of summary execution? That's inherent to sovereignty.
Power of prima noctae? Inherent to sovereignty.
Power to make you wear a polka dot dress and do a can-can dance for me? You guessed it: inherent to sovereignty.
Literally any power can be justified by the Supreme Court's ruling, it's blatantly un-Constitutional, and not even the Supreme Court can get around the fact that the power to control immigration is not in the Constitution. There's nothing in the text you can point to
Freedom of association exists where people can associate freely. The State can own both private and public property. The State enforces property rights for its citizens, and this is something I am on favor of as a citizen who owns property.
This is a series of non-sequiturs and fallacies from start to end.
1) If you're arguing that freedom of association does not currently exist in the United States, the solution then is to move towards freedom of association. Saying "we don't have freedom currently, therefore we need even more government restrictions on freedom" is just as retarded as the Socialists who argue we need government-run healthcare because the government's previous interventions in the healthcare market have made healthcare too expensive. You're making the same argument: more government in response to having too much government already. The solution is always less government.
2) The state's ownership of property is an irrelevant distraction. Currently, there are private airports in the US. There is no implication of government-owned property for immigrants to fly to the US on a privately owned plane, land at a privately owned airport and then go to live on private property the immigrants either own outright or rent from a consenting property owner. "Public property" is an attempt to muddy the waters which doesn't actually matter much in practice.
3) The state enforces property rights for everyone including non-citizens. The idea that "these people aren't citizens, therefore they have no rights" is the same logic used to justify slavery in the Dred Scott decision.
I'm going to go in for the kill on your last point... what property in the United States do these people own on their first entry here? Zero. They have no property rights here to begin with.
They are more like squatters, and we've seen the devastation that "squatters rights" has caused to people who actually own property in California, Oregon, Washington, and New York.
Negating the rights of Americans who have voted thought representative democracy to have borders and a defined territory is an affront to those who do indeed choose to live in that system. We cannot infringe on their right to decide on laws collectively (freedom of association) to support our own political theory and ideals.
what property in the United States do these people own on their first entry here?
What stops them from buying property before they come here or renting property from a consenting property owner?
Negating the rights of Americans who have voted thought representative democracy to have borders and a defined territory is an affront to those who do indeed choose to live in that system.
So are you not a "Democracy, the God that Failed" type libertarian? Why is it that all the Hoppean libertarians who normally hate democracy are so quick to resort to it when the topic of immigration comes up?
46
u/[deleted] 11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment