Nope. You need to look a the DoI as a whole, and not just take that snippet out of context. The DoI says that oppressed peoples can throw off their oppressive governments and set up a better one with which to protect those rights. It doesn’t say everyone has a right to come to this country. And, of course, the DoI was written in the context of institutionalized slavery, so one wonders how much the writers and signers fully understand what those words should mean anyway. Frankly, the DoI was an excuse to declare independence, more than a reason.
I disagree.
Why would someone who believed that part of the DoI be more likely to believe in open boarders than the right to/ability of people to create their own better governments where they live? Why must the pursuit of happiness mean leaving a bad place rather than improving it? Especially considering that the DoI was inspired by people determined to make where they were better rather than going elsewhere to find the lives they wanted.
Leaving a bad place is one of the options that should not be closed off. That’s why most civilized nations take in political refugees and asylum-seekers.
That’s why a great many U.S. citizens criticize our actions in the slavery era – forcing slaves to return to their masters – or for denying refuge to people fleeing Nazi Germany. We made some mistakes there.
No one says that fleeing a bad place is the only option; we also applaud those who stay and fight tyranny in their own countries. We should assist them when we’re able.
Nonsense.
It’s ridiculous to say we only have two choices: our current laws and no laws. The left doesn’t believe that. The right also doesn’t believe that. As far as I know, nobody believes that or is arguing for it.
People on the right and on the left are both saying current immigration laws need to be changed. There is obviously disagreements on what those changes should be. But neither side is suggesting we should repeal all the laws.
It is not just that some people should be born shackled to the duty of reforming North Korea, or the DRC, simply because they happened to be born within the territory claimed by those governments. In fact, the task of reforming corrupt regimes often requires action from outside those places (and I’m not talking military action here - many effective dissidents from oppressive regimes have found it necessary to flee and continue their advocacy from elsewhere).
If a person is not free to leave their birthplace, they’re not very free. And since every inch of livable surface on the planet is claimed by some government or other, the only way for this freedom to practically exist is for all governments - not just the US, but everyone - to commit to not getting in the way of this process.
Those blokes who drew up the Declaration of Independence certainly had their own agenda there. But as it happens, they expressed the underlying principle really, really well.
Uhm… OK.
I, for one, do think that we should let in everyone who passes a basic screening. And I’m sure there are others out there, too. But there aren’t very many of us.
What does “basic screening” consist of?
Some of you talk like we didn’t have open borders for most of our history.
Thank goodness. A country with no border control doesn’t sound like it would remain a great country.
Did we really?
Not enforcing immigration law, which is what those who favor sanctuary places, is different from not having immigration law in what substantive way?
Much of our history as a country, yes. Most? Not quite. The first 100 years saw unregulated immigration, but restrictions were put in place starting in 1875.
Not sure why it matters if you start the lock at 1776. My point is that open borders isn’t some abstract theoretical concept that no one has ever tried. We did it. It was fine. Racism ended it.
Naturally, 2017 is not 1917. But I’m not so sure which way that cuts, honestly.
Sanctuary cities don’t want to use their own police resources to enforce Federal laws. It’s not their job.
If the Feds show up with a warrant, the police will hand over the suspect. They don’t have any duty or obligation to phone the Feds and say, “Hey, we’ve got someone here who might be an illegal immigrant.”
The local police departments also don’t enforce income tax laws. It isn’t their job.
OK, but colonies are meant to be colonized, so it would not seem appropriate to compare immigration polices for a colony and a full-fledged country. And if your point is that we’ve done it, you can start in 1776 and say “we did it for 100 years”. That should be sufficient to demonstrate that it’s not some abstract concept.
And while it’s true that most (all?) of the early immigration laws had a real racist element to them, our current law does not.
This sounds like a good reason not to believe in the Declaration of Independence, then.
Having basic information about current events is not an “exalted position.” Even you might aspire to it by, like, actually checking some facts.
If you seriously don’t understand the difference, I’ll take the time to explain it. But if you’re just playing games, I have no interest in playing them with you. Which is it?
I’m serious. What’s the point of being in favor of a law yet not in favor with the enforcement of that law?
I’m not in favor of civil forfeiture. Therefore I don’t think it should be done. See that’s consistent. I don’t say I’m in favor of civil forfeiture please don’t do it. Or I’m in favor of civil forfeiture but please don’t. Why? Those would be contradictory positions.
So, please, explain what I’m missing.