llegal immigrant rescues boy

[Universe Prince]

My point is two-fold. A.)  Immigration is not trade.

I didn't say it was. However, immigration is involved in trade. For example, someone immigrates to here from somewhere else in order to trade his labor for recompense.

You can have plenty of trade without immigration.

Indeed. But you can have plenty more with immigration.

Being denied entry to a country is not an abridgment of a "right" to trade, any more than my not being allowed to peddle  coke and hookers from the lobby of the local high school is.

On the contrary, it is an abridgment of a person's right to trade. Notice, I did not use quotes there. Fundamentally a person owns his labor and therefore has a right to agree to exchange it for something owned by someone else. Usually that means working for money. By restricting immigration, the law is essentially interfering in a person's right to enter into a private agreement of exchange with another person or entity. So yes, it is an abridgment of the right to trade. Feel free to argue that such an abridgment is right or wrong, but stop trying to sell me some adult male bovine excrement, because I ain't buying it.

Any alleged right to trade is contingent on obeying other laws in the process.

Is it? I think it is not so. The right to trade is linked to the fundamental right of property. The right exists prior to the law. Therefore the right cannot be contingent on the law or obedience to the law.

B.) Immigration has other consequences besides trade, and plenty of them. They are not all necessarily good.

Indeed it does. And I would point out all of them, or even merely most of them, are not necessarily bad either. I will go ahead and say, though, that the benefits outweigh the detriments, in my opinion. I've seen many arguments to the contrary, but to date, none remotely persuasive or substantial enough, in my opinion, to make me question my position.

[BT]

Is employment (the trade of labor for goods) a right or a privilege?

If a right,  is it unconditional?

[Universe Prince]

Is employment (the trade of labor for goods) a right or a privilege?

I don't believe I'd call it either one. Employment is not a right, and I'm not saying it is. The right is the right to enter into an agreement of exchange. One has a right to choose to trade, meaning both parties have a right to choose. So employment itself is not a right. So I think you're asking the wrong question. Does a person own or not own his labor? If he does, then does he or does he not have a right to enter into an agreement with someone else to exchange that labor for something else? If a person does not own his labor, then who does?

[Religious Dick]

Being denied entry to a country is not an abridgment of a "right" to trade, any more than my not being allowed to peddle  coke and hookers from the lobby of the local high school is.

On the contrary, it is an abridgment of a person's right to trade. Notice, I did not use quotes there. Fundamentally a person owns his labor and therefore has a right to agree to exchange it for something owned by someone else. Usually that means working for money. By restricting immigration, the law is essentially interfering in a person's right to enter into a private agreement of exchange with another person or entity. So yes, it is an abridgment of the right to trade. Feel free to argue that such an abridgment is right or wrong, but stop trying to sell me some adult male bovine excrement, because I ain't buying it.

Any alleged right to trade is contingent on obeying other laws in the process.

Is it? I think it is not so. The right to trade is linked to the fundamental right of property. The right exists prior to the law. Therefore the right cannot be contingent on the law or obedience to the law.

At this point, we've just entered the realm of idiocy. Yes or no - do I have the right to peddle dope (or for that matter, anything else) at the local high school? Does this right include the right to set up shop any damn place I feel like it? If not, why not? And if so, what rights do others have to restrict my access to their facilities?

What your telling me is the equivalent of saying the right of free speech obliges the law to provide me with a platform on which to exercise it. Sorry, no such obligation exists. If you have something to sell or something to say, it's your obligation to supply the means to do it, and you must do it with respect to the rights of others, and with regard to the law. What your trying to say is basically a restatement of the socialist argument that the right of life, liberty and happiness is an obligation of the part of the law to secure the means to obtain those things. There is no such obligation. A right to act is not a guarantee of being supplied with the means to act. There's no such right.

[BT]

I don't believe I'd call it either one. Employment is not a right, and I'm not saying it is. The right is the right to enter into an agreement of exchange. One has a right to choose to trade, meaning both parties have a right to choose. So employment itself is not a right. So I think you're asking the wrong question.

I don't think I am asking the wrong question. The central premise of your argument is that immigrants should be free to trade their labor for goods, services and or monetary compensation.

And that pretty much is the definition of employment.

Your comparison of the right to trade labor to property rights is equally confusing. Does the state not have property rights? Do they not have the right to set conditions for use of that property just as you would have that right within your own home?

The way i understand it is this.

You can hire a contractor to paint your house. And they are free to hire labor to meet that contract. But i can't hire a contractor to paint your house without your permission and you would be well within your rights to ask the uninvited labor to leave your premises.

[Universe Prince]

At this point, we've just entered the realm of idiocy.

No, I think we got there when you started talking about your iPod.

Yes or no - do I have the right to peddle dope (or for that matter, anything else) at the local high school? Does this right include the right to set up shop any damn place I feel like it? If not, why not? And if so, what rights do others have to restrict my access to their facilities?

I'm tempted to say yes, but the "war on drugs" is another issue. Let me put it this way, I do not accept the notion that the government is the landlord of the country. If you want to surrender your right to property, don't let me stop you. But I believe your analogy fails because I believe that the private business owner should be able to choose for himself who he hires or does not hire rather than to have the government determine this for him. So yes or no, does the business owner own his business? Or does the government own it? Does an individual own his labor? Should you be free to trade your labor to an employer of your choice, or should the government decide for you?

What your telling me is the equivalent of saying the right of free speech obliges the law to provide me with a platform on which to exercise it.

Bzzzz. No, but thank you for playing. What I am telling you is the equivalent of saying that the right of free speech should apply to everyone, not just the people you like.

What your trying to say is basically a restatement of the socialist argument that the right of life, liberty and happiness is an obligation of the part of the law to secure the means to obtain those things.

Wrong again, Kreskin. I'm not saying immigrants have to be employed at all. I'm saying we should not get in the way of them looking for work. That is all. I'm not demanding they be given jobs. I'm saying we should not get in the way. I'm saying, basically, and repeatedly, we should not get in the way.

A right to act is not a guarantee of being supplied with the means to act. There's no such right.

Yep. Exactly. I'm not saying immigrants must be employed. I'm saying an abundance of artificial barriers to the immigrants' exercise of their basic rights is unnecessary. I'm not saying you must hire them. I'm saying let them look for work. If I said the government should not prevent you from getting a show on cable television, I would not be saying the government must give you a cable television show; I would be saying only that the government should not interfere. If I said the government should not prevent you from moving from, say, Maine to, say, Texas to look for work, I would not be saying the government should guarantee you a job in Texas; I would be saying only that the government should not interfere. (Can you guess where this is going? I'm sure you can.) When I say the government should not interfere with people coming to the U.S. to look for employment, I am not saying the government should guarantee anyone a job; I am only saying that the government should not interfere.

Sigh.

This ain't neurosurgery. I'm not being obscure. I'm not being esoteric. I'm not being obfuscatory. I doubt I can put this any more plainly or simply. You either get this, or you don't.

[Universe Prince]

I don't think I am asking the wrong question. The central premise of your argument is that immigrants should be free to trade their labor for goods, services and or monetary compensation.

And that pretty much is the definition of employment.

No, but that might be the definition of being able to look for employment. So again, I'd say you are, in point of fact, asking the wrong question. If I argued that you should be free to criticize the government, would that be the definition of someone listening to your criticisms or would it merely be an expression that you should be free to criticize the government? If I said you should be allowed to put your house on the market, would that be the definition of saying someone has to buy your house, or merely saying that you should not be prevented from putting your house on the market?

Your comparison of the right to trade labor to property rights is equally confusing.

Is it? What is confusing about the notion that a person owns his labor? Isn't this why people enter into legal agreements of employment? Because they are trading labor, skill, or something similar for compensation? I don't see why this would be confusing at all.

Does the state not have property rights? Do they not have the right to set conditions for use of that property just as you would have that right within your own home?

First you need to answer the question of what the state owns. Does it own your business? Your land? Your labor?

You can hire a contractor to paint your house. And they are free to hire labor to meet that contract. But i can't hire a contractor to paint your house without your permission and you would be well within your rights to ask the uninvited labor to leave your premises.

Yep. That sounds about right. So then the obvious question would be, is the government the landlord? Yes or no. Because you're comparing the government to a private land owner.

Yes, you can't hire someone to paint my house without my permission, but then, I cannot command who you are and are not allowed to hire to paint your own house. Yes? I cannot demand that you do your own painting. Right? I cannot deny you the power the choose for yourself to look for work with a painting business, can I? And you would be well within your rights to tell me to leave you alone if I tried any of that. Right?

[Stray Pooch]

When I say the government should not interfere with people coming to the U.S. to look for employment, I am not saying the government should guarantee anyone a job; I am only saying that the government should not interfere.

The problem, UP, is that you are suggesting that the government should have no role - including that of defending our borders.  This is one of the many reasons for which I do not subscribe to libertarian principles.  I agree that government should be limited - and certainly FAR more limited than it currently is.  But I do not believe government should be non-existent.  It is not hyperbole to compare the gradual assimilation of barbarian groups into Roman society (which ultimately overwhelmed the empire) to the gradual (but rapidly increasing) assimilation of a culture which includes many who think they ought to "retake" Mexican lands ceded a century and a half ago.   I don't take that as so big a literal threat as some of the more alarmist elements out here, but I do consider it.  

Here is one simple statistic that brings this issue home to me.  This past summer, I volunteered to become a literacy/ESL tutor (though an unexpected change in my life made me have to drop it.)  I began the training and we were told that this year, in the city of Harrisonburg, 47 percent - almost half - of the Kindergarten population were ESL students.  This is a rapidly growing city and much of the growth comes from immigration.  Not all are Hispanic.  We have Russians, Kurds, Bosnians and other ethnic groups.  But the vast majority is Spanish-speaking.   This is no longer the small city it was a decade ago when I moved here.  We are rapidly growing and have even managed to capture some dubious recognition.  Two of our city's fine citizens have been featured "guests" on "America's Most Wanted."  Reader's Digest prominently mentioned an MS-13 murder victim from our shady little valley in a story about growing gang threats.  The DEA has identified this city as one of the major sources of Crystal Meth on the East Coast.  Some DMV workers were busted shortly after 9-11 creating false IDs and Driver's licenses for illegals.  This city, which was safe and quiet only a few years ago, has become a dangerous place with muggings and other violent crime becoming commonplace.   Not all of this, of course, is solely due to immigration.  But a lot of it is.  

It is not a basic right to enter someone else's lands, homes or property and take that which does not belong to you.  Once having been given legal permission to enter this nation, I say make yourself at home.  But until that is done, take yourself BACK home.  If the government has a basic function at all, it is the protection of the borders.  That's an extension of my right to secure my home from invaders.  You have the right to travel from place to place, but not to enter my place without my permission.  That's because of my inalienable property rights.  Same goes for my borders.  The government is not, as you ask BT, a landlord.  Rather, it serves the function of a guard, hired by the landlord (in this case the people of the United States) to provide security for the property owned by the landlord.  Violating my borders is NOT trespassing on the government's land.  It is trespassing on MY land.  The purpose of government is not to become some bloated bureaucracy.  But it IS to provide security to those who put the government in place.  That's a fundamental part of the contract of government and people.  There really isn't a heck of a lot more a government should do.  But it should darn well do that.

[Xavier_Onassis]

One, it isn't a house. And two, you remind me of the legal agreement my folks were presented with when trying to get the papers signed on buying a house some years ago. The neighborhood was an old one, and part of the original legal agreement was some sort of throwback language about agreeing not to resell the house to people of color, or some such nonsense. Naturally, my parents had that eliminated from the agreement. We don't need artificial barriers to people coming here to work and make a better life for themselves and their families and maybe move into the house next door.

============================================================
I fail to see why as an American citizen, I should have no say in whether there should be laws regarding who gets to enter my country, or even worse, why I should be powerless when a government that I have elected deliberately refuses to vigorously enforce the immigration laws that have been passed by law.

I also fail to see what previous restrictive covenants on your parents' title deed have to do with this issue. I maintain that citizens have a right to determine who gets into this country, whether or how they become residents or citizens, and furthermore to insist that the laws be enforced as vigorously as possible. I think we have always had this right and should always have it.

It is not like anything has changed and now we must let immigrants in because of said changes. That is absurd.

[The_Professor]

Cordova likely saved the boy, Estrada said, and his actions should remind people not to quickly characterize illegal immigrants as criminals.

They are criminals - every one of them.  Entering this country illegally is a criminal act.  This act of kindness doesn't change that.  In fact, even if the guy was coming over here to sells drugs and mug old ladies, he might well have been inclined to assist this boy and his mom.  Even a criminal (unless he is also a sociopath) can have feelings and compassion.

Of course it is entirely possible that this person was just coming over to try to make an otherwise honest living and support his family.  I'd bet the vast majority of illegals are just coming here for the economic oppoprtunity.  That doesn't make their acts legal.  There are some 12 million illegals in this country.  I would be deeply shocked to learn that only a few of them help people in times of crisis.  I'd even go so far as to say that many of them would be MORE helpful if they weren't afraid of accidentally giving away their status and getting deported.  But so what?  A random act of humanity doesn't mean that all illegals should be viewed as angels - though this one can certainly claim the title. 

The fact, PI as it may be, is that anyone here illegally is a criminal by definition.  It is also true, and also PI, that a very large number of these illegals are involved in illegal acts beyond the initial crime.  Had this man been a legal resident, it would have only have been a local interest story.   I could come up with a thousand stories right now that had the headline "Legal Resident saves local child . . ."

So I agree with Hnumpah and Sirs - thank him, then send him back.  Should he ever apply for legal citizenship, this incident might well be worth mentioning during the process.  It certainly makes me inclined to forgive his (literal) trespass.  But in the end, this story is not about illegal immigration, it is about individual kindness. 

Gee, where's the love, folks? Geesh, give the guy a break! He didn't HAVE TO DO THIS so let's make an exception here and let him in. Are rules so tight that charity cannot be allowed?

[The_Professor]

I see it as sort of a morality play.
The Good Samaritan sees small boy wandering in desert, disoriented, and stays with him until help arrives. Knowing that the police will send him back (the rest of the story is at the link, it says they took him into custody I think), he still stays with the boy.  That is a good thing to do, no?  I think so, anyway.  That's why I posted it.  It was self-sacrificing of him to do so.  He did the right thing.  If he hadn't been there...would the little boy have been OK?
It is somethign to think about.  I am not for anyone and everyone coming into our country illegally.  I know it's a very big problem.  But this story just grabs me.

Lanya, I believe an exception should be made here. America needs more good Samaritans. Go get the rest of his family and let them come as well.

[The_Professor]

This particular person is illeagal ,but by this deed of kindness has demonstrated that he is the sort of guy that would be a good neighbor.

There is plenty of room for good neighbors  , how is a system to be produced that actually does screen out harm full criminals but does not make criminals out of nice people like this one ?


For this particular guy ? Lets thank him with cash.

No, let's let him in, put him on the road to citizenship, him him get a good job, get the rest of his family and let them come as well and promote kindness for once in a blue moon.

[The_Professor]

When I say the government should not interfere with people coming to the U.S. to look for employment, I am not saying the government should guarantee anyone a job; I am only saying that the government should not interfere.

The problem, UP, is that you are suggesting that the government should have no role - including that of defending our borders.  This is one of the many reasons for which I do not subscribe to libertarian principles.  I agree that government should be limited - and certainly FAR more limited than it currently is.  But I do not believe government should be non-existent.  It is not hyperbole to compare the gradual assimilation of barbarian groups into Roman society (which ultimately overwhelmed the empire) to the gradual (but rapidly increasing) assimilation of a culture which includes many who think they ought to "retake" Mexican lands ceded a century and a half ago.   I don't take that as so big a literal threat as some of the more alarmist elements out here, but I do consider it.  

Here is one simple statistic that brings this issue home to me.  This past summer, I volunteered to become a literacy/ESL tutor (though an unexpected change in my life made me have to drop it.)  I began the training and we were told that this year, in the city of Harrisonburg, 47 percent - almost half - of the Kindergarten population were ESL students.  This is a rapidly growing city and much of the growth comes from immigration.  Not all are Hispanic.  We have Russians, Kurds, Bosnians and other ethnic groups.  But the vast majority is Spanish-speaking.   This is no longer the small city it was a decade ago when I moved here.  We are rapidly growing and have even managed to capture some dubious recognition.  Two of our city's fine citizens have been featured "guests" on "America's Most Wanted."  Reader's Digest prominently mentioned an MS-13 murder victim from our shady little valley in a story about growing gang threats.  The DEA has identified this city as one of the major sources of Crystal Meth on the East Coast.  Some DMV workers were busted shortly after 9-11 creating false IDs and Driver's licenses for illegals.  This city, which was safe and quiet only a few years ago, has become a dangerous place with muggings and other violent crime becoming commonplace.   Not all of this, of course, is solely due to immigration.  But a lot of it is.  

It is not a basic right to enter someone else's lands, homes or property and take that which does not belong to you.  Once having been given legal permission to enter this nation, I say make yourself at home.  But until that is done, take yourself BACK home.  If the government has a basic function at all, it is the protection of the borders.  That's an extension of my right to secure my home from invaders.  You have the right to travel from place to place, but not to enter my place without my permission.  That's because of my inalienable property rights.  Same goes for my borders.  The government is not, as you ask BT, a landlord.  Rather, it serves the function of a guard, hired by the landlord (in this case the people of the United States) to provide security for the property owned by the landlord.  Violating my borders is NOT trespassing on the government's land.  It is trespassing on MY land.  The purpose of government is not to become some bloated bureaucracy.  But it IS to provide security to those who put the government in place.  That's a fundamental part of the contract of government and people.  There really isn't a heck of a lot more a government should do.  But it should darn well do that.

Shame on you, Pooch! One of the primary tenets of your LDS faith is Charity, is it not?

[Plane]

This particular person is illeagal ,but by this deed of kindness has demonstrated that he is the sort of guy that would be a good neighbor.

There is plenty of room for good neighbors  , how is a system to be produced that actually does screen out harm full criminals but does not make criminals out of nice people like this one ?


For this particular guy ? Lets thank him with cash.

No, let's let him in, put him on the road to citizenship, him him get a good job, get the rest of his family and let them come as well and promote kindness for once in a blue moon.

We don't know if that would please him or not , many migrants love their home in Mexico and cross the border just to earn some cash to bring back when they return.
It wouldn't be hard at all to send the guy a card with moral support and only mildly hard to send him a check , makeing an exception in law for him would require an act of Congess.

[The_Professor]

This particular person is illeagal ,but by this deed of kindness has demonstrated that he is the sort of guy that would be a good neighbor.

There is plenty of room for good neighbors  , how is a system to be produced that actually does screen out harm full criminals but does not make criminals out of nice people like this one ?


For this particular guy ? Lets thank him with cash.

No, let's let him in, put him on the road to citizenship, him him get a good job, get the rest of his family and let them come as well and promote kindness for once in a blue moon.

We don't know if that would please him or not , many migrants love their home in Mexico and cross the border just to earn some cash to bring back when they return.
It wouldn't be hard at all to send the guy a card with moral support and only mildly hard to send him a check , makeing an exception in law for him would require an act of Congess.

Then let's find out. Let's talk to him. And take it from there. I hate to see Charity ignored because of Law.