The ACLU is very upset over the civil rights violations of people who aren’t Americans and have no Constitutional Rights. But, we should wonder, is this really about civil rights? Or something else?
(USA Today) Gov. Mike Pence is facing a federal lawsuit that challenges his power to block Syrian refugees from resettling in Indiana.
The lawsuit, filed Monday night, accuses Pence of violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by accepting refugees from other countries but not those from Syria. It comes a week after the Indiana governor — and more than a dozen from other states — suspended the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the state following terrorist attacks in Paris.
The complaint was filed Monday night in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana on behalf of Exodus Refugee Immigration, an Indianapolis non-profit organization that resettles refugees in Indiana. John Wernert, secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, which oversees refugee settlement in the state, is the other defendant named in the lawsuit.
They aren’t American citizens. They have no rights. There is, though, this pesky thing called the 10th Amendment, which gives all power to the people and states that is not specifically given to the federal government, and the Constitution does not specifically give los Federales the power to force States to take in refugees, particularly those who have the potential to be hardcore Islamists, since these so-called background checks really do not accomplish much. Pence would be happy to take them once “the federal government addresses the security gaps acknowledged by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security with regard to refugees from Syria, and as governor I will continue to put the safety and security of Hoosiers first.”
According to the 13-page complaint, Pence’s decision also caused some financial harm to Exodus, which receives federal money to aid refugees resettling in the state. The funds, which are funneled through state agencies, are spent on employment training, English language education and other services, according to the ACLU of Indiana.
Oh, so it’s really all about the money. Los Federales have approved 19 Syrians for relocation to Indiana, and, Exodus will have to use it’s own money to help out, and there would be no reimbursement. As the old saying goes “if the question is why, the answer is money.”
Meanwhile, super friendly Canada has said it will only accept children, women, and families from Syria, no unaccompanied men. The young fighting age men tend to make up the majority of those who are streaming out of the Middle East and into Europe, as well as attempting to come to Canada and the U.S.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
When it comes to rights, this is where it shows who knows the founding principles of this nation and who don’t.
Most Americans believe we gain our rights through our constitution, our government and our citizenship. Most Americans believe that government precedes rights and therefore without government we have no rights.
Not only is this way of thinking in contradiction to our founding principles, common law and common sense… It is also dangerous to give government that much credit and power.
If the government can give you anything, it can also take it away.
Our Declaration of Independence espouses the natural law principles that became popular during the Age of Enlightenment. John Lockes’s philosophy against the lagitamicy of the divine right of kings gave rise to all of mankind being equal in natural rights and to individual sovereignty.
Each individual is a king or queen with equal rights to life, liberty, health, happiness and estate.
Naturals rights are only limited by the equal rights of others. One person cannot tresspass on another’s rights and no one can impose an obligation upon another without consent.
Governments are created by people and therefore cannot excercise any more power than the people can. Governments are not the creators of rights, but rather the protectors of rights that pre exist government.
If the people did not have any rights before government existed, no one person would have had the right to create a government in the first place. No right to travel would have existed for people to move to America, no natural right to contract would have allowed the people to write a constitution, no right to trade would have prevented the people from trading with another. And the list can go on and on.
When you say no one has rights because they are no an American citizen it is absolutely absurd.
Imagine if illegal immigrants have no rights to life, that would mean that you and I could go gun down millions of illegals without consequence. It would mean non citizens could have their property stolen, their wives molested and their children turned into slaves.
As Americans and as good Christians, we need to ensure that all people around the world are respected by us and that we love them as ourselves. Each person is a unique part of our family and we need to return back to the days that made America the shining beacon on the hill rather than the cesspool of fear and violence against our neighbors.
Nope.
There is certainly no “right to heath,” nor “happiness.”
While an individual may pursue those things, they are not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination. They are not “rights” as understood by the founding fathers, Locke, etc.
Again.
Nope.
You fail to make a distinction between the rights of men, the rights under the Constitution and the laws of a society.
You obviously have not read John Locke’s Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government to understand what I stated.
Nowhere did I say a right inferred a guarantee, hahaha
Rights are never guaranteed in nature… you will one day grow old, you may get sick from time to time, you may lose your property to natural occurrences and you may get real depressed over it all. However, when these rights are trespassed by another because of another’s actions, there you have tyranny and a common law crime.
I recommend you actually read their work before you start telling others what the founders understood, hahaha
Your statement here makes no sense… you either have rights or you don’t… if you have three laws all contradicting each other that is just chaos… there should be no distinction between the three… they should all be uniform and general in nature.
Actually, I have. Locke does not make the point that people have the right to health and happiness, but that others do not have the right to impede individuals to harm others in their health and pursuit of happiness.
If the rights of men are “natural,”: they are by definition “guaranteed” as all possess them,
The distinction eludes you because you are so wrapped up in what you think you know to consider other points.
The rights of man may be greater than that enumerated by the Constitution. Nowhere, for example, will you find any mention of health and happiness in the Constitution. That is not to say that the Constitution does not embody some of the rights of man, but even your own statements show that you do not believe that the Constitution lists all of the rights of natural man, It is also well established that laws are made not only to protect the rights of people (both natural and enumerated), but to help establish moral order within a society.
It is not as you mistakenly assert “three laws contradicting each other,” but the intersection of rights and laws. The Founding Fathers understood the conundrum.
It is clear that you do not.
The problem with constantly responding is that you are simply taking one or two statements out of context of what I have written and trying to make me out as some kind of socialist liberal.
You are debating me on natural rights and we’re both in support of having these basic rights and yet you insist on debating me on out of context statements and misrepresentations of what I have said.
I run a business and unfortunately don’t have as much time to constant respond on these posts as I wish.
That should read:
….but that others do not have the right to impede individuals nor harm others in their health and pursuit of happiness.
I think you are confused on what are rights. It isn’t necessarily wise to listen to the whines of present-day society who think they are owed everything by others. Next will you be telling us there is a right not to be offended. What nonsense. If the federal government can guarantee safety then I think Pence said it would be different but others are so empty-headed they run like a herd to ignore the government is not doing this, their job under the constitution to safeguard Americans, and complain against one who is actually doing his job. Can we sue the Indiana ACLU for supporting this dereliction of duty? On another matter, didn’t you listen to our Dear Leader when he said we are not a Christian nation? (He is almost as competent as North Korea’s leader, did you hear him say holding a climate change meeting was really showing those terrorists? Has he really become that big of a joke on the world stage?
I am responding to what you wrote. Please show me where I have taken anything out of context. I am not trying to make you some sort of “social liberal.” I have not labeled you in any way. I am saying that you are wrong on several points. You are wrong as shown by the texts that you cited and relied upon.
If you think that I have taken anything out of context, please show me where. I am open to discussion on that. The problem is that in many cases, you doubled down on the statements to which I responded. That doesn’t seem to be “out of context” to me.
I run a business as well. While I respect that there are time constraints, that doesn’t mean that your incorrect statements are suddenly correct.
Have a great Thanksgiving.
Your last statement is a perfect example of what I am talking about.
How does my statement about being busy and running a business infer that somehow my assertions are not incorrect as a result?!?
This is the very reason I’m don’t have time to debate the finer points you have tried to insuate that I have made. I have never inferred nor made any statements that anyone has any Guarentees to healthcare or a happy life without struggle. I have merely repeated what has been written by John Locke. If you have a problem with his wording, take it up with him, not me.
Because it appears to me that you are using the excuse that you run a business to somehow justify your writings or lack of them.
I am pretty sure that Locke is not here. Furthermore, as I said, Locke never made the point that health is a right. Let me go back to where you made that statement at 2015-11-24 09:16:53 :
Each individual is a king or queen with equal rights to life, liberty, health, happiness and estate.
That is you talking. It is not Locke.
Secondly, if you are so familiar with Locke, you know that is where Jefferson got the idea that governments are instituted to protect the rights of people and to protect the guarantee of those rights. When you lump health and others in with the rights that were known to the Founders and say that they are equal amongst the rights that are guaranteed, you have made those rights guaranteed.
In short, I don’t have to take anything up with Locke because Locke does not agree with you.