Upholding the Nation and its 'classical liberal' roots

Today we hear of an immigration bill in the Senate that looks to 'legalize' a large swath of those currently here illegally. These individuals have sometimes come here for jobs, some for criminal activity and some for terrorism. They have moved over the porous border of the United States because Congress has refused to exercise its Authority to safeguard the Nation and put up comprehensive border security, protection and processing at legitimate ports of entry into the United States along not only the land borders but to the actual ports of entry, which see an influx of illegals via unaccountable shipping. I have gone over the full view of this in this article on terrorism, but the basics are also being violated by mere illegal presence.

Those that come for mere jobs are then said to be in need of humanitarian outlook or 'classical liberal' outlook. And yet it was 'classical liberal' outlook that did NOT put into the hands of foreigners the Right to come to this Nation illegally. In point of fact those 'classical liberals' put the Nation State as foundation for Rights and the Sanctity and Sovereignty of the Nation over the Rights of foreigners. This was done so that Nations could decide who was and who was *not* fit to join them. It is a classical, liberal view of autonomous Nation State that must be allowed to operate with Sovereignty and not have that put at peril by foreign forces.

Those that wish to assert 'classical liberalism' are not asserting 18th, 19th or even early 20th century liberalism. It is not 'classical' as the very means of its purview was set via Treaty and the Rights of individuals are overseen by their own Nation State and other Nations may deal with them as they please when they act without regards to the Treaty involved. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly and unequivocally states that in:

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Those are Rights within their Sovereign Nation of which paramount is to have a Sovereign Outlook which does allow a Nation to restrict who can and cannot enter that Nation so that individuals *within* that Nation have a community free of interference from outside forces. Again those are Rights *inside* their Nation, not externally save those covered by Treaty and what Foreign Governments afford those that come to their Nation Legally. This Treaty even goes further and tells us what an individual may NOT do:

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

By crossing borders contrary to the Laws of Nations, contrary to Treaties signed, and Contrary to the Will of the People of the United States, those that come here put Our Sovereignty at peril and Our Right to have a society at risk.

Those that wish to put forth some humanitarian or social or individual 'right' for individuals to violate the Laws of Nations put forth by their People and see them violated are NOT acting in accordance with that view of 'classical liberalism'. And by supporting that mere companies and foreign Nationals have some 'right' to work in a Nation in which they are not willing to get legally processed into are then putting forth something wholly alien to ANY form of 'liberalism' of ANY age. I go over that fully in this article and I cite, in particular, John Fonte on the problem of conservativism and the Transnational Right. Those wishing to assert the 'classical liberal' view may find this bit of interest in their SUPPORT by the Wall Street Journal as cited by Fonte on illegal aliens:

"Our own view is that a philosophy of 'free markets and free people' includes flexible labor markets. At a fundamental level, this is a matter of freedom and human dignity. These migrants are freely contracting their labor, which is a basic human right."

As Fonte looks at this so I will paraphrase what the effect of that is and what the outcome of passing some sort of 'amnesty' or 'regularization process' IS:

Thus, the Journal is telling us that immigration for employment purposes is “a basic human right.” It is not simply a policy preference but is elevated to the realm of a universal principle. On the crucial democratic question: who decides American immigration policy? The answer is clear enough. American immigration policy is decided by autonomous individuals who are foreign citizens in places like Mexico, Pakistan and Ireland. These decisions are made without the consent of the governed. Policy is not decided by ordinary American citizens in Ohio or Oklahoma. Nor on principle, the Journal editors tell us, should this policy be decided by the elected representatives of the American people in Congress assembled. Clearly, this is a post-democratic, post-constitutional principle advocated by the editors of the Wall Street Journal.

And that bit about consent of the governed is the critical part as it is the BASIS for 'liberalism'. If you support illegal aliens to take jobs in the United States contrary to the Laws of Congress then you are NOT supporting the ideal of Sovereign Nation State that has autonomy and freedom from outside forces and may, indeed, regulate who can and cannot enter their Nation. A whole group of 'classical liberals' got together and WROTE the US Constitution and the following is their view of who gets to decide immigration policy for the United States in Article I, Section 8 we find the following passages on this:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

[..]

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

And then in Section 9 Congress gets this:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

After that there are the prohibitions upon the States and lesser governments within the States in Section 10, here in full:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Then comes the Presidential powers in this area in Article II, Section 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Then the Judiciary via the Supreme Court gets these powers in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Yes, there are some over-arching things that these 'classical liberals' then put into Article IV:

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

[..]

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Now where, exactly, are these 'other' values that are purported to be here giving foreigners and mere companies the power to set immigration policy for themselves and the Nation? Where are these 'classical liberal' values upheld by the Laws of Nations which are the Sole Sovereigns to protect their People?

Where, exactly, in this 'classical liberal' view is MY right to have and hold a Nation in common with my fellow countrymen and NOT have that violated by foreigners? For that is a basic and 'classical liberal' value! Running back to the Declaration of Independence will not help you as Thomas Jefferson, not considered very conservative by any standard, wrote this with the editing help of Ben Franklin who is, likewise, not considered to be a conservative by any modern standard:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Jefferson and Franklin are quite blunt and to the point here. To secure Rights government is instituted with the consent of the governed. And when government seeks to reduce these Rights through action or inaction it devolves towards Despotism. This does, indeed, mean that the Rights of the People to have commonality and government that is RESPECTED is paramount to ensure these self-same Rights of Man. That is what the Universal Declaration *upholds*.

I do not find it within any document of the Federal Government that the Rights of the People of the United States should be usurped and decided by foreigners and mere companies that are creations of man and legal constructs.

Where are these 'classical liberal' values that state this?

Any such value which does not adhere to the Nation State framework and the Sovereignty of a People to have a Nation State that upholds their Nation and protects them, is looking to destroy the entire basis FOR the Rights of Man.

I did not vote *for* that.

And when Congress does that thing it is diminishing Our Right as a People to have Common Government with the Consent of the Governed. Because that Right is one of the foremost 'classical liberal' values ever put forth for creating fair and just government amongst men. That proposal to allow others who have no authority delegated to them by the People to do as they will with respect to those things that are held in Common by the People are putting forth that the Nation State has NO MEANING.

If the Nation State has meaning then it is respected and upheld, even when you, as an individual, do not like what it does. Within the United States you have great input into what can be done, but the very basic compact amongst the Citizens to have Sovereignty over themselves dates back to 1776. It was clearly stated then, clearly enacted by the Constitution and clearly upheld since then by multiple rulings of the US Supreme Court.

Those that propose that there is something *above* the Nation had better damned well find out where We the People have SAID THAT. For the Sovereignty of the Nation is held in common by all and may NOT be broken due to sufferings of others who blatantly break with Treaties and the Law of Nations to have Sovereignty unimpeded by outsiders. Those that break with Treaties are no longer seen as being UNDER THEM. They have violated the agreements between Nations and can no longer appeal to anything but the *mercy* of Nations, not to any inherent Rights as they have BROKEN with the foundation of those Rights.

When something else is proposed as being 'more universal' do look to what the 'classical liberal' Jefferson warned of about the decay of government into Despotism. That is exactly what that is a call for: to start the Despotism of non-accountable actors to create rules of the Nation without the consent of the governed.

We fought a War over that.

The Revolutionary War.

Perhaps that is what those pushing for this seek: encroaching Despotism to incite war so as to extinguish Freedom and have it dictated by others.

I don't find that to be 'classical liberal' but do find it to be classically Barbaric.