• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Why do 3 King County Council members support illegal aliens?

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The article does deal with firearms and is in Washington state Dave has been good about that.

My personal feelings is that fundamental rights belong to all humans regardless of their "legal" status.

I have changed my stance on immigration over the years, and feel instead of focusing on people who travel to better their lives, we need to focus on the problems the government causes. I am finding it more and more difficult to label someone "illegal" for simply exercising a fundamental right of travel without government permission.

I do realize though that it is one of the powers of the Federal Government to protect its borders.

A good read is Omnipotent Government by Ludwig VonMises.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
The article does deal with firearms and is in Washington state Dave has been good about that.

My personal feelings is that fundamental rights belong to all humans regardless of their "legal" status.

I have changed my stance on immigration over the years, and feel instead of focusing on people who travel to better their lives, we need to focus on the problems the government causes. I am finding it more and more difficult to label someone "illegal" for simply exercising a fundamental right of travel without government permission.

I do realize though that it is one of the powers of the Federal Government to protect its borders.

A good read is Omnipotent Government by Ludwig VonMises.

I agree we should get rid of any licensing requirement to use an automobile on the public roads.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Maybe because they took this part of Kent v. Dulles to heart?

The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta. 12 Chafee, [357 U.S. 116, 126] Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. See Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44; Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274 ; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 . "Our nation," wrote Chafee, "has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases." Id., at 197.

They then said "hm, the 14th amendment says that no state shall 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law', and since these people trying to travel here because it may be necessary for their livelihood, any deprivation of that liberty without due process of law violates the equal protection of that person."

Or it's because they're dirty liberals. Your choice.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
The article does deal with firearms and is in Washington state Dave has been good about that.

My personal feelings is that fundamental rights belong to all humans regardless of their "legal" status.

I have changed my stance on immigration over the years, and feel instead of focusing on people who travel to better their lives, we need to focus on the problems the government causes. I am finding it more and more difficult to label someone "illegal" for simply exercising a fundamental right of travel without government permission.

I do realize though that it is one of the powers of the Federal Government to protect its borders.

A good read is Omnipotent Government by Ludwig VonMises.


Of course, the human right to travel wherever one wants is a reasonable argument. And so, too, is the concept that fundamental rights belong to all of us, regardless of nationality or where you happen to be standing on the planet at any given moment.

What I'm after here, though, is the hypocrisy on the part of government officials who are supposed to uphold the law and the constitution, and in this case, it's hard to argue that they're doing either.
These @$$clowns want to ignore federal immigration law out of political correctness...but I guarantee that if one of these "undocumented workers" was popped with a trunk load of hardware you would hear a much different whine from this bunch.

I'm still plugging away at the Fast and Furious debacle that involved people who should not have been in this country, certainly shouldn't have been trafficking in guns, and most assuredly should not have been creeping around the Arizona desert the night of Dec. 14, 2010 taking shots at our Border Patrol guys, and killing one of them.

Pardon me, but that personally pi$$e$ me off.

Now, our officials in King County see this as the politically correct thing to do in an appeal to what they believe is a liberal and dependable voting bloc. They're all wet up to their eyebrows, however. They overlook crimes committed, problems created, the drain on our health care and education systems...because of politics.

It should not be that way.

We have laws. Some of those laws we don't like, but we obey them until such time as we can change or repeal them, or overturn them in court; the latter being something I'm kind of familiar with :lol:.
But these guys at the county don't obey them. That's not leadership, and it's setting a lousy example. If they don't like a law, they should work to change it instead of just thumbing their nose at it.

Say one of us runs afoul of a gun law in King County. You think for a nano-second these jerks are going to side with you and say "Oh, it's a lousy law, let's just ignore it." Nope, they'll want to throw the book at you.

Yet they think it's just peachy to give "sanctuary" to people who are in this country illegally. Some of them committing crimes. With guns...which prompts the hand-wringers in Olympia to cook up ways to ratchet down on OUR gun rights.

There's a disconnect. It's not on this forum. It's at the King County Council offices and in Olympia.

And I'm going to rub their faces in it every chance I get.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
Another good article dave. You will probably find there are more than those that have publically admitted they support illegal aliens, Patty Murray also used Illegal immigrants to canvas areas for support when she was running, and God forbid you ask Rob McKenna for an opinion on Illegal Immigration. We are a sancturary state so this is where alot of them flee to. I like that in light of the federal govt not doing their job that some states are taking the initiative to take matters into their own hands. On those lines as you said we already have laws in place and I dont think states should be making their own laws. Arizona is doing it right, but a libtard state like Mexifornia will just open the front door and hand them a map of I-5. As Mexifornia has taken away the law abiding citizens rights to CC or OC the only ones left that can carry a firearm are the criminals. That is a bad thing esp given the fact that the Mexican gangs outnumber all the white, black and asian gangs combined (not that any gang is a good thing).
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Of course, the human right to travel wherever one wants is a reasonable argument. And so, too, is the concept that fundamental rights belong to all of us, regardless of nationality or where you happen to be standing on the planet at any given moment.

What I'm after here, though, is the hypocrisy on the part of government officials who are supposed to uphold the law and the constitution, and in this case, it's hard to argue that they're doing either.
These @$$clowns want to ignore federal immigration law out of political correctness...but I guarantee that if one of these "undocumented workers" was popped with a trunk load of hardware you would hear a much different whine from this bunch.

I'm still plugging away at the Fast and Furious debacle that involved people who should not have been in this country, certainly shouldn't have been trafficking in guns, and most assuredly should not have been creeping around the Arizona desert the night of Dec. 14, 2010 taking shots at our Border Patrol guys, and killing one of them.

Pardon me, but that personally pi$$e$ me off.

Now, our officials in King County see this as the politically correct thing to do in an appeal to what they believe is a liberal and dependable voting bloc. They're all wet up to their eyebrows, however. They overlook crimes committed, problems created, the drain on our health care and education systems...because of politics.

It should not be that way.

We have laws. Some of those laws we don't like, but we obey them until such time as we can change or repeal them, or overturn them in court; the latter being something I'm kind of familiar with :lol:.
But these guys at the county don't obey them. That's not leadership, and it's setting a lousy example. If they don't like a law, they should work to change it instead of just thumbing their nose at it.

Say one of us runs afoul of a gun law in King County. You think for a nano-second these jerks are going to side with you and say "Oh, it's a lousy law, let's just ignore it." Nope, they'll want to throw the book at you.

Yet they think it's just peachy to give "sanctuary" to people who are in this country illegally. Some of them committing crimes. With guns...which prompts the hand-wringers in Olympia to cook up ways to ratchet down on OUR gun rights.

There's a disconnect. It's not on this forum. It's at the King County Council offices and in Olympia.

And I'm going to rub their faces in it every chance I get.


Good points Dave, I hope you didn't take my post as an attack on your article, it was just an addition of my viewpoint.

I think we are both on board that it is the Gov that is the problem here, we just look at it at slightly different angles.

And I'm going to rub their faces in it every chance I get.
I can appreciate this! :cool:
 

LkWd_Don

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
572
Location
Dolan Springs, AZ
Dave Workman said:
Of course, the human right to travel wherever one wants is a reasonable argument. And so, too, is the concept that fundamental rights belong to all of us, regardless of nationality or where you happen to be standing on the planet at any given moment.

~~ snip ~~ Now, our officials in King County see this as the politically correct thing to do in an appeal to what they believe is a liberal and dependable voting bloc. They're all wet up to their eyebrows, however. They overlook crimes committed, problems created, the drain on our health care and education systems...because of politics.

It should not be that way.

We have laws. Some of those laws we don't like, but we obey them until such time as we can change or repeal them, or overturn them in court; the latter being something I'm kind of familiar with .
But these guys at the county don't obey them. That's not leadership, and it's setting a lousy example. If they don't like a law, they should work to change it instead of just thumbing their nose at it.

Say one of us runs afoul of a gun law in King County. You think for a nano-second these jerks are going to side with you and say "Oh, it's a lousy law, let's just ignore it." Nope, they'll want to throw the book at you.

Yet they think it's just peachy to give "sanctuary" to people who are in this country illegally. Some of them committing crimes. With guns...which prompts the hand-wringers in Olympia to cook up ways to ratchet down on OUR gun rights.

There's a disconnect. It's not on this forum. It's at the King County Council offices and in Olympia.

And I'm going to rub their faces in it every chance I get.

Good points Dave, I hope you didn't take my post as an attack on your article, it was just an addition of my viewpoint.

I think we are both on board that it is the Gov that is the problem here, we just look at it at slightly different angles.

I can appreciate this! :cool:

I agree that as a Citizen we have a Right to Travel anywhere within our Nation that we wish un-impeded and without many of the restrictive laws that are in place. That is another discussion for a much different forum than this one.

I also agree with Dave that the Legal/Illegal Immigration debate could cause conflict with our RTKBA and the initial fault to be found, is clearly with our Government Officials (GO)and their agendas in not wanting to or failing to uphold the Immigration Laws as established by Congress.

I for one have no problem with Immigrants becoming Citizens, as that is what our Great Country is all about.. I do however have a problem with those who attempt to circumvent (for whatever the reason) those Laws to become a Legal Immigrant and a rightful Citizen of our Country!

If I had the chance to really talk to our GO.. I would have to ask, What about the word illegal is it that our GO do not equate with a Criminal act? And by their supporting the circumvention of the Laws of our Nation by those who are illegally here, do they not see makes themselves Criminal Friendly and in violation of their Oaths of Office?
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the[ citizen] cannot be deprived.

not an illegal allien can not be deprived. the key word being citizen

Are you incapable of reading? What part of "any person" is unclear in the 14th amendment? The part where scary brown people might come here and steal yer jerbs? :p
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Are you incapable of reading? What part of "any person" is unclear in the 14th amendment? The part where scary brown people might come here and steal yer jerbs? :p

I understand why people get frustrated, I used to when trying to make a living and having to compete with others who don't have to follow the rules it had nothing to do with skin color. The more I thought about it though the more I realized it isn't the peoples fault, I would probably do the same thing if I was in their shoes. It is the governments (both ours and theirs regardless of which country they originate from) fault and like so many other laws, these laws do nothing to protect those it was supposed to protect but actually did more harm than good.

E.G. I have seen L&I fine a contractor who was licensed but not even go near the immigrant folks working a few houses down, they know they can track and get the extorted money from the "legal" contractor fairly easily, while they would fruitlessly spend countless hrs and wasted energy going after the "illegals". If FDR's packed SCOTUS court and threats to pack it more didn't happen we would have a court more in line with the Lochner era, where individuals had the right to contract without gov. influence contractors and employers could compete with "illegals" and the issue wouldn't be as skewed as they make it today.

Ludwig VonMises in his book Omnipotent Government, explains these things on a much more cerebral level than my oversimplification. One thing he does make real clear is how Gov. backed protectionism had a lot to do with and causes a lot of War.
 

tombrewster421

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,326
Location
Roy, WA
I understand why people get frustrated, I used to when trying to make a living and having to compete with others who don't have to follow the rules it had nothing to do with skin color. The more I thought about it though the more I realized it isn't the peoples fault, I would probably do the same thing if I was in their shoes. It is the governments (both ours and theirs regardless of which country they originate from) fault and like so many other laws, these laws do nothing to protect those it was supposed to protect but actually did more harm than good.

E.G. I have seen L&I fine a contractor who was licensed but not even go near the immigrant folks working a few houses down, they know they can track and get the extorted money from the "legal" contractor fairly easily, while they would fruitlessly spend countless hrs and wasted energy going after the "illegals". If FDR's packed SCOTUS court and threats to pack it more didn't happen we would have a court more in line with the Lochner era, where individuals had the right to contract without gov. influence contractors and employers could compete with "illegals" and the issue wouldn't be as skewed as they make it today.

Ludwig VonMises in his book Omnipotent Government, explains these things on a much more cerebral level than my oversimplification. One thing he does make real clear is how Gov. backed protectionism had a lot to do with and causes a lot of War.

You're going to have to loan me your book collection sometime.:)
 

mohawk001

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
113
Location
Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
All this talk, and some of it two-faced in my opinion. You do know that we are denied the right to some parts of the US thanks to it being put off limits by the Feds due to how dangerous it is because of all the illegals some of you support coming through the area. So which is it? We should be able to travel, or they should be able to deprive us of our rights to our land by making it too dangerous for us? And how come I see northern states, who don't have the problems the lower ones do, trying to tell the lower ones to suck it up and enjoy their problems?
 
Top