Posted on 11/23/2011 9:05:05 PM PST by AmericanInTokyo
Principles matter and when a person uses their`s to justify the unjustifiable, thats just wrong-and its justice,not social justice,code word for socialism. As I have said on other amnesty threads, what part of illegal do you not understand? More "useful idiots" for the progressives,what a shame.
Let me say first that as an active participant in Free Republic since 1998, my monthly donation ought to be some evidence that I am in general agreement with the principles on which FR is built. On the other hand that does not mean that I am going to be in 100 % agreement with Jim Robinson on every single question ever asked and, as far as I can tell, he has never required that of me, or of you. And that certainly does not mean that I am required to be in 100% agreement with you.
You snarkily imply that I am unable to follow a logical thread and then you proceed to ‘argue’ that because of my position on immigration I must, therefore, be a socialist, in favor of wealth redistribution. That is your idea of logic?
So, to your supposedly logical question. What part of illegal do I not understand? My position is not that we are to overlook illegal immigrants. As I read it, that is not Newts position either. (And I have frequently stated that Newt's plan is not perfect, but it does give us a good starting point to resolve the problem.)
I will even stipulate the illegality. But every criminal has an opportunity to present a case for ameliorating their punishment during the sentencing phase of a trial. And I believe there are situations where ‘justice’ is not served by simply showing someone the border by cattle car, bus, forced march or first class plane ticket, without considering their whole story.
My faith teaches me that justice must be tempered with mercy. So I would, in fact take a number of things into account, such as how long someone has been here as well as what their life looks like. In our system of justice we do have a statute of limitations on some crimes. Unless you equate illegal immigration in every case with murder it is not unreasonable to ask how long the statute of limitations ought to be for such a heinous crime. Especially when that criminal may be someone who works for a living, is a productive member of the community, pays taxes, sits on the school board, and attends the same church you do. Or maybe that criminal is someone who was brought here by their parents at the age of two and who very sincerely wants to stay and to become a citizen.
I am also opposed to blanket amnesty, in favor of shutting down the borders by whatever means necessary, immediate deportation for those who have been here only a short time and are only here for the bennies, and I completely agree with the self-deportation folks that if you get rid of the magnets people will leave on their own.
But I am very much in favor of a more humane approach to the disposition of those who remain after the magnets are gone and the freeloaders are gone. It does not follow that my position is progressive or un-conservative.
You may disagree with my approach but it is neither reasonable or logical to accuse me of socialism simply because I advocate a different solution than you do. If the America you believe in requires that everyone adopt your positions then I would suggest you re-read the constitution. Perhaps I should ask what part of the first amendment do you not understand..
So there should be a statute of limitations to such a thing as citizenship? Then what creates a citizen? Is it a law? Is a shared concept? What creates a Republic? Is it the mere presence of a law or is it more?
I believe in natural law. And it doesn`t have to come from some creator, it can be by right of our sentience. We have a natural right to establish our fate, our environment, our national domain, if you will. Your faith has no more credence then my belief in individual sovereignty, which by the way is the basis for my belief in our Republic.
The founders did believe in individual sovereignty, influenced by religion of course, however, they still sought something more tangible as well, philosophers. But they established the concept of "government by consent of the governed", knowing that it was some of their individual sovereignty that the individual loaned to the state to establish the, "more perfect union" they sought (what god or sentience gives, only they can take away). It exists only by virtue of OUR individual sovereignty, not an international "family of man", we ARE islands unto ourselves, god given OR by virtue of our sentience, or there is no basis for the limited government Republic the Founders believed in, since its established by virtue OF the natural law we LOAN to the state. What ever it`s source.
I don`t hold very strong ORGANIZED religious beliefs, man has totally screwed the pooch on that. Ever see the original Cosmos by Carl Sagan (the man was a leftist hack but very intelligent), I believe we`re the flat landers and "God" is the 3rd dimensioner (ump-teenth dimension-er), my belief, so damn me if you will (judge not lest ye be judged?). I find it ironic that "he" may be just some shmoe in "his" reality, but to us flat-landers, "OH God". Still, if they seek to steal our sovereignty, (illegal aliens) which is the basis of our Republic, by coming into our nation uninvited then it is a form of murder. They seek to take an irreplaceable part, a precious unalienable right that YOUR god or my sovereignty has given me, and that sir, is tantamount to the small murder of that sacred (if you will) unalienable right that only I by my actions and will can give up. The murder is of my/our sovereign rights, or as you`d put it, my/our god given rights by stealing them from my and our national control to decide, WHATEVER they may feel, thru their criminal actions in getting here and staying here. They aren`t part of that entity, the Republic, the United State of America, so they aren`t even part of the equation yet.
If they feel so entitled to THEIR god given or sovereign rights the let them fight for them where THEY derive their existence and sovereignty, where ever that may be. OR, let them respect ours and deal with all the hoops, bells and whistles we decide to erect for them to have the PRIVELEDGE of sharing what is NOT THEIR birthright but OURS.
I didn't say that. I said that it is not unreasonable that their might legitimately be a statute of limitations on the crime of illegal entry into the country. It can be a complicated area of jurisprudential philosophy, but a discussion worth having. I have no idea what the concept of a statute of limitations on citizenship would even mean. But since I didn't say it, I don't suppose I have to defend it.
I am still trying to untangle your comments on natural law, sentience, and individual sovereignty and will reply to that section as soon as I have time.
Please be assured that I would in no way "damn" you simply because you believe basis for your law and morality resides in your sovereign will and mine resides in the sovereign will of God. In fact, I do believe that in many ways your will is sovereign, and given that status by God himself. Were I to damn you on that basis I would only be doing that out of a self-righteous and perverted understanding of what justice means. That would be a serious contradiction to my belief that the only real basis for morality, laws and justice necessarily resides outside of individual human will, sovereign or otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.