As I've continued to think about the immigration/border security issue, the one argument I keep coming back to is the private property argument. While the case could be made that "pubic property" is public in the broadest sense and the there should be no restrictions on crossing "public property", much of the land along the border is privately owned property. Interestingly enough, we see a strong biblical case made that supports the concept of ownership of private property. This starts with "Thou shall not steal." and goes on to the story of Annanias and Saphira in Acts. Even the concept of the Jubilee year still is predicated on the private ownership (or stewardship) of property, and certainly is more about voluntarily ceding control rather than theft or appropriation. Beyond that, one of the foundational tenets of the United States is the concept of contract law and the protection of legal ownership of property.
So, while a case could be made that crossing the border onto "public lands" might not be a big deal, that case doesn't hold true for crossings made onto private property. Clearly, this trespass and the potential damage caused is beyond any doubt a criminal act, and this criminality is magnified if anything is stolen, crops eaten, trash abandoned,or livestock killed. In many cases there is real measurable harm done to property owners by migrants passing through.
Personally, I've already suggested multiple reasons to regulate immigration using simple common sense, reasonable regulations that would allow immigration in a rational and controlled manner. This recent call to place unfettered "liberty: above any other considerations including the liberty of people to legally own private property, is simply a knee jerk unthoughtful emotion driven overreaction to situation that simply needs reasonable regulation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It's worse than that. It's outright stupidity. The concept of "liberty" is corrupted to make that case as it indeed infringes upon the right of others as in the manner you describe.
But one can also make the argument that as actual citizens of the United States, this land we call the United States belongs to We The People of the United States...not to those from elsewhere. To enter without regard to those to whom the land belongs, whether owned in the manner you describe or corporately as citizens of the land we inhabit is an abuse of the liberty of the invader.
And to add to your comments referencing Scripture, there is nothing there that supports the type of entry Trump and others seek to regulate. No welcome to sojourners allows for the sojourner's disregard for laws of the land into which he sojourns...including laws regulating entry.
I agree with your point that the argument can be made that public lands are “owned” by the citizens of a country and that they are in that sense similar. I didn’t choose to pursue that point mostly because the biblical case for private property is so strong.
I agree that to insist that unfettered, unregulated migration is not necessarily what scripture is referring to when it talks of the sojourner. I seem to remember that those who lived temporarily with the Israelites were expected to live according to their laws and customs in order to get that protected status. Which actually is an argument against the open border, unlimited liberty position.
Post a Comment