I do not agree with the "if any" part. Laws have a moral authority because they are in place to stop an immoral act. What would you say if 10 people came into your living room and declared it theirs? Same situation. A Country has a sovereign right established by it's inhabitants. That is why invasion is generally an act of war. You go take the other guys land, he gets pissed and kills you. Moral action. That is justification for miniguns and mines on the border. Stay home and clean your own house, don't come to mine because you can't control the kids. This opens the door to the whole who owns the US argument, in that Europeans moved in on Native Americans (probably why they are called "Native"). 300 years on, there is a hard time fixing all that happened back then, I wasn't around then. Today, the issue is the same: People coming in from another country wanting to take yours. Invasion. Act of war.

The premise has to be that all laws derive their moral authority, if any, from the individual rights they protect. And no one has an individual right to limit the number of other people who can cross a boundary, unless it's the boundary of that individual's property.

Morally binding on what premise? The system of laws is morally binding in that they rely on people obeying them. The vehicles of change are elections and changing the representation to those who will actually represent the voters interests and not their own. Declaring that you believe laws are not morally binding is simply anarchy. That is like abortion protestors burning down a clinic because they believe that it is not illegal since the clinic is not morally valid. It is still arson.

It's not "good enough for citizens." Most of the laws on the books today are wrong and therefore not morally binding.

There is no point in having a moral philosophy if we are going to abdicate its power by declaring that breaking laws is wrong per se.

jdg, an "open border" policy would be an unmitigated disaster.You cannot, cannot have laws regarding your sovereign borders and then say "ignore them". A country has every right to regulate who enters when and how. Just because a herd of people choose to ignore it is not reason to adopt the BS failure that politicos call "solutions" I am all for landmines and miniguns if that's what it takes. If you want to come in, follow the law. If it's good enough for citizens, why would you ever think non-citizens get a pass? That is completely invalid.

Witch Hunt indeed. Let see here.. a black man robs a bank, so you go looking for black men: Racial Profiling. People from south of the border cross illegally, so you look for people from south of the border.. DUH? Morons. The same morons who fondle 80 year old women and let middle eastern men go through, because they are afraid of "backlash". Idiots, idiots idiots....a thousand times I say: IDIOTS!

Indeed, they are assuming that they will get their way. Your statement is correct, the IRS and Gibson thing is appalling, yet no one was ever held accountable, Lois Lerner didn't get wet over anything...and she got a bonus and get out of jail free card. Oh, plus retirement on our dime. POS...

Can not argue with your statement. Well said.

Hear hear, but we need on solving the real problems not piling on new ones.

I completely understand your frustration.

Okay...but in the mean time...we've got a problem.

A free person should be able to travel anywhere freely. The problem here is an irrational drug policy and a welfare state. If the US got rid of its war against drugs, the drug trade and associated violence would disappear over night. If we eliminated the welfare state, these people would not be able to freeload off the system and only those able to work or those with a family able to produce would cross.

That said the present policy of democrats is clearly defined to give them a political advantage. That is disgusting.

Sheesh fits.

It would also be a much smaller job if the gov wasn't in the business of freebie hand outery too.

THANK you! sheesh.

That's not a -1 comment +1

A border law that tries to keep millions of people out (and is constantly violated) is a lot more work for a Border Patrol than an open-border policy that only tries to keep real bad guys out. Not that all bad guys are as easy to spot as the ones seen on camera on Glenn Beck earlier this week, but it's a much smaller job.

Am I insane for thinking the government's job is to keep certain people out of country? Back in the day we used to have an immigration system in place to assure health and safety...they're we're medical exams (for contagious diseases) and sponsors (personal vouchers) for people wanting to come to America. What was wrong with that? Now it's free ed all around, free food, free housing, come on in!

Well, as you can see, our border laws are next to useless, I don't think it's boding well for us either. Except to ensure more votes for leftists...and to break the bank from all the freebies they receive...not to mention the added criminal element we have to deal with here.

There shouldn't be a law against anyone crossing unless intent to violate someone's rights can be proven.

An Objectivist would agree that crossing a national border is not a violation of anyone's rights. Now jdg-he wanted to rachet things up ALOT and he ignores that we live in a welfare state and that illegal immigration causes the crime rate of southern border states to skyrocket. It's a huge problem of crime, disease, and overwhelming systems which may not be recognized by a proper government but certainly by the current infrastructure the US has in place..

What credibility?

A 'tyrant'? How?
"wipes his ass with the Constitution"? When?
"He attacks Mexicans and dissenters? Huh?
"He belongs in prison"? For what?
What are you basing these accusations on exactly?

So, the border patrol that IS at the 'actual border' (Where "our laws begin") shouldn't stop illegals from coming across?

Wow! I hope you are illustrating the absurd by being even more absurd. It is a sad comment on America when the best among us, the heroes like this sheriff that should be help up as an example for all to follow, instead are harassed exactly because they are such great people.