If rights are handed down from government, to citizens, than of course government should pick and choose its new citizens through a rationing process, as it does now with most groups. If rights are held by man, all men, as the founders insisted, then where do governments step in on immigration to set the rules?
You have a right to be an immigrant, but you have no right to circumvent law by sneaking across a sovern border. Arizonas law does not encourage discrimination by race. Welfare State goodies only encourage loafers in. America should encourage more immigration, but all immigrants should and ought to pass a checkpoint, as Mexico and other nations require.
Everyone knows that Mexicans generally don’t keep neat front yards, that Vietnamese eat intestinal tracts, that Laotians can’t handle guns very well, but did anyone also know that the Irish drank too much, that the Jews liked to haggle on prices too much, that the Germans belched too much, and that the Scots had bad tempers? And who cares?
The role of government proper to a rights respecting government, opens the borders to all makes and models at whatever design they may happen to be. Since the government is tasked properly to protect rights, and not lure in certain groups, it should have checkpoints upon entry into its nation. It should check for communicable diseases and criminal records, period. Since many argue that Mexicans and other groups come to the US for welfare, then stop providing welfare damn it! Welfare is not a proper role of government.
Why are Mexican criminals overtaking Arizona? They are trying to, and Arizonans are rightly mad. The State passed a law authorizing police in the state to also inquire about immigration status when pulling over vehicles already suspected of criminal actions. It does not allow for Mexican immigrants to be willy nilly checked for “papers” as The Race (La Raza) , and others on the political left suggests. A criminal is a criminal, immigrant or not. Should immigrants who are here without proper status be deported? Does this protect the rights of all men? No. Only unfree, or mostly unfree nations deport people because of their “paperwork” status. Theres no rights for “citizens”, there are only rights for “all men”. Looters and rioters be damned, they should be caught, deported, and banished from entering the U.S. We should have a defined border, proper check points, and a stronger rule of law. But a wall will not work, ask China. Welfare should be off-limits to all immigrants, period, and then dismantled completely for all. It destroys lives. This does not mean that a taxpaying American who either now does not work and collects it , or who now works but once collected it should be shamed. In an economy that’s been a third to one half government controlled, one cannot be expected to be taxed at every turn into prosperous times. But welfare and bankruptcy should be avoided whenever possible when an individual in a social democracy’s ability to literally “survive” is threatened. Key to this is that welfare, can never be a right. Immigration is a right, unless an individual is a direct threat, objectively proven to the nation an individual is immigrating into. This is where the rule of law must rest, on the active protection of individuals, not groups of races, creeds, and needs.