| || |
My critics want to insinuate that one must be a citizen in order to be able to come here and work. That isn't in the Constitution.
The last sentence is false. I know this because as a union electrician I had to prove my status every time I was dispatched to a new job. We had to present certain documentation; a passport or birth certificate or a drivers license and social security card and sign a document swearing I was a citizen (or otherwise authorized to work). The documents were photocopied and placed into a file and sent somewhere.
I found it strange that scab contractors didn't have to do this.
How's that War on Drugs been working out?
You cannot reduce illegal immigration by focusing on just one part of the equation.....you cannot reduce illegal immigration if the borders are porous and 'Sanctuary Cities' are offering them safe harbor. You can't reduce illegal immigration by luring them here with inviting rhetoric, welfare and education for their anchor babies, driver's licences, amnesty proposals, Dream Acts... and then turn around and try to lay all the blame on the fact illicit jobs (illicit drugs) can be had.
Last edited by webrockk; 19th March 2017 at 07:29 AM.
When all you have is the "it's illegal" mantra, it's a very weak argument. The United States Supreme Court has opined:
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
We aren't talking a case where a few hundred or even a few thousand people have disagreed with the law and have, ethically, rejected it. We're talking where the numbers of Americans rejecting unconstitutional statutory laws are in the millions. Like it or not, they have a voice in this discussion. I realize from previous encounters that your hatred only extends to the foreigner... maybe corporate employers; however, if you went after everyone connected to the passive resistance and civil disobedience connected to this topic, America would be owned by the government and millions of its citizens would be in jail or prison.
Sometimes you just have to wake up and accept reality. From my perspective, the government has NO jurisdiction when it comes to my unalienable Rights. Their own decisions support the principle. For me, the threats of fines, fees and even threats of prison for engaging in free enterprise is a wasted effort (much like the threats government makes against pot smokers.) It's more rational to accept that and offer some proposals that incentivize employers to hire Americans without forcing them to do so. Bear this in mind: What I create is mine. I'll do with it whatever I want and you can pound sand if you don't like it.
“But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. .. Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on.” Frederic Bastiat, The Law
I'm sorry, sir. You do not have a de jure (lawful / constitutional) right to lay claim to anything I create. The tools of labor cannot prohibit me from giving a job to the best qualified candidate simply because some people want to misuse immigration laws in order to interfere with Liberty.