Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Ron Paul and Immigration

I still think there is value in Ron Paul's campaign, but this commercial sure doesn't make it easy. Note that he takes the Tancredo position that earlier immigrants "followed the rules" and came here legally. But back then you had to have an infectious disease to be denied entry. Virtually everyone else could come in. Illegal immigration was unnecessary since there were essentially open borders. I continue to be appalled that Ron Paul is parroting the line of the worst opponents of immigration.

By the way, where does the U.S. Constitution give Congress the power to control immigration? Or is that an implied power?

Cross-posted at Liberty & Power.

4 comments:

Joe said...

I'm really surprised that they produced that commercial and I hope they don't show it.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I was looking into that yesterday due to a discussion in LeftLibertarian2. Article I Section 8 does give Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". And unfortunately, the first clause of Section 9, which supposedly dealt with importation of slaves, could be interpreted to grant Congress the power to control Migration (after 1808).

Jimi G said...

Since politics is religion, laws need interpreters just as religions need priests. And the law is whatever those in power (priests, senators, whatever) say it is, nothing more, nothing less.

Constitutional cover is just a fig leaf. Soon enough, even that won't be necessary.

I've suggested it before, John Hasnas' Myth of the Rule of Law is the most succinct piece I've read on the subject. I'm sure you've contributed to the subject over the years too, Sheldon.

chris lempa said...

Ron Paul is taking the Tancredo stance (as you mentioned). If this is what made Tancredo such a vile person, what does it make Paul? We need to be consistent.

Jimi G said...

Oh, but that's throwing the baby out with the bath water!

Just because Paul is a Statist, a career politician and takes unpopular positions with certain libertarians doesn't mean he won't be the Messiah who restores "sanity" to American politics!

I'm sure things would be really really neato if Paul were President! He'll make moves that will cost the big boys TRILLIONS of dollars in profits, just for the sake of the Constitution!

I bet the big boys would even sit still for it, just like they did with Kennedy! After all, that was just some fluky lone nut -- how lucky can the big boys be!

I am shaking my head at all you nutjobs who think Paul is even remotely an answer, let alone THE answer. Hey, but whatever gets you through the day.