Home
Knowing how California is, the way I’ve treated the immigration issue in this Constitution will certainly be a hotbed of contention. Controversy. Criticism!
I’ve written it so that all people, both “legal” and “illegal” who have permanent residence in California, excluded the Indian tribes who aren’t taxed, are citizens of this State. They get a stake in local governance. They have to pay California taxes. They have an opportunity to be part of the State militia, which we know as the California National Guard.
I don’t find this a problem as this Constitution is vehemently anti-entitlement, as I view entitlements as the enemy of property rights, and ultimately, an institution corrosive to the spirit of liberty. The way I view it, entitlements encourage the servility of a people.
So I’ve removed entitlements excepting the public schools and the public libraries, these in deference to some of the ideals of Thomas Jefferson. I ask, what harm are the “illegals” if they cannot steal from other people through the operation of government? I’d think they are of no harm. I also acknowledge they are people, born with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property, and it is that right of liberty that entitles people to move across this globe without asking permission of someone else. I figure they’ve risked a lot to come here to California, so why not leave them alone to participate in the free-market like everyone else, indeed, what right have any of us to bar them from that? And, if they live here, how can we say they’ve no stake in local governance, and still be consistent to our own ideals?
However, I’ve heard it argued that to do as I propose is to weaken the rule of law that is so necessary to the proper functioning of government. Indeed, when California was accepted to this Union it did delegate away the power of immigration and naturalization to the United States in Congress assembled. Do we have such grievance to rescind that power? Also, for the immigration itself, to extend such amnesty to all would encourage all to move here in disregard of US law, as they now California will protect them from deportation if they make it across the border. As I’ve stated, I find this of no problem as long as there aren’t entitlement programs. However, many do indeed find it a problem.
Californians, any insight into the legal and moral aspects of this question?
What further arguments can be stated against my position? Please explain in detail.
I’ve written it so that all people, both “legal” and “illegal” who have permanent residence in California, excluded the Indian tribes who aren’t taxed, are citizens of this State. They get a stake in local governance. They have to pay California taxes. They have an opportunity to be part of the State militia, which we know as the California National Guard.
I don’t find this a problem as this Constitution is vehemently anti-entitlement, as I view entitlements as the enemy of property rights, and ultimately, an institution corrosive to the spirit of liberty. The way I view it, entitlements encourage the servility of a people.
So I’ve removed entitlements excepting the public schools and the public libraries, these in deference to some of the ideals of Thomas Jefferson. I ask, what harm are the “illegals” if they cannot steal from other people through the operation of government? I’d think they are of no harm. I also acknowledge they are people, born with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property, and it is that right of liberty that entitles people to move across this globe without asking permission of someone else. I figure they’ve risked a lot to come here to California, so why not leave them alone to participate in the free-market like everyone else, indeed, what right have any of us to bar them from that? And, if they live here, how can we say they’ve no stake in local governance, and still be consistent to our own ideals?
However, I’ve heard it argued that to do as I propose is to weaken the rule of law that is so necessary to the proper functioning of government. Indeed, when California was accepted to this Union it did delegate away the power of immigration and naturalization to the United States in Congress assembled. Do we have such grievance to rescind that power? Also, for the immigration itself, to extend such amnesty to all would encourage all to move here in disregard of US law, as they now California will protect them from deportation if they make it across the border. As I’ve stated, I find this of no problem as long as there aren’t entitlement programs. However, many do indeed find it a problem.
Californians, any insight into the legal and moral aspects of this question?
What further arguments can be stated against my position? Please explain in detail.
