I am questioning the validity of laws that violate Natural Laws and Natural Rights. But I am only espousing the principals of The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.
. . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
. . . deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
(The majority is not granted the authority to make unjust laws, i.e. laws that violate Natural Rights.)
Rubio, in his statements, shows that he understands both sides: our civil law MUST have as its foundation the Natural Law. He has the courage to point out the problems that occur when this isn't the case, and he is trying to find a legal solution to rectify the problem.
"I mean, if you do something that somehow encourages illegal immigration in the future, it's counterproductive. On the other hand, it feels weird to deport a valedictorian who has been here since they were four years old and have done well in school. So, trying to find the balance there, that is important," Rubio told Sean Hannity Monday night. "What the President did by ignoring the Constitution, ignoring the Congress, makes it harder to find that balance, not to mention that it's offensive to the constitutional principles of our republic.
"You know, on the one hand, we do have a significant illegal immigration problem. It has to be confronted. It has to be solved. We cannot be the only country in the world that does not enforce its immigration laws. On the other hand, we have some very compelling human stories like the cases of these young people who have been here their whole life, who've grown up here, brought here at a young age, through no fault of their own, and it touches your heart to hear these stories. And trying to find a reasonable balance that honors both our legacy as a nation of immigrants and also with the legacy as a nation of laws is not easy.""
As Hadley Arkes writes here:
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1875/article_detail.asp
Consider for example that proposition the Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid regarded as one of the truly "first principles" we draw from the logic of moral judgment itself, a principle I've restated in this way: that we do not hold people blameworthy or responsible for acts they were powerless to affect. That principle may cover a wide variety of things where people really had no causal powers over their condition or their acts and should not be held culpable. We may argue in different cases as to how powerless or incapable people actually were, but no one doubts the validity of the principle—