U.S. Government’s Immoral and Unconstitutional Travel Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments next term regarding Donald Trump’s immoral travel ban, his order to ban those wanting to travel to the U.S. from several countries that all happen to be Muslim majority countries. Another reaffirmation by nine robed bureaucrats that America is not about individualism, unalienable rights and private property, but about collectivism and the supremacy of central planning.

The Declaration of Independence is perfectly clear in its support of “unalienable rights,” especially the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which are rights that all people have inherently, rights which preexist the formation of any government. That is why they are called “unalienable.” If you believe in the concept of unalienable rights, then you would believe that people have a right to live, a right to own and control their own lives, and a right to liberty which I believe is the right to live free of the aggression, intrusion and violation of one’s person or property by others.

There are some people who believe that those rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are rights that U.S. citizens have based on their citizenship, or based on their membership to a particular political union. I’ve heard many of those people, mainly conservatives or “constitutional conservatives,” on talk radio talking about “unalienable rights” in one breath and then in the next breath saying that “only citizens” have those rights. Sadly, they don’t seem to see foreigners as having the same unalienable human rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as American citizens have. (Then they would have to admit that they really don’t believe in “unalienable” rights, and that they believe that only government-granted citizenship gives people their rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. More cognitive dissonance.)

And I even heard “liberal” law professor Alan Dershowitz interviewed on the Mike Gallagher radio show, in which Dershowitz stated that foreigners don’t have constitutional rights, or the U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply to foreigners.

Well, the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, enumerates only some of the specific rights that people — all people — have, that can be under the category of the “rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights that government is granting people. No, rather it is a recognition of some of the unalienable rights that all people have, rights which preexist the government, and it is a set of rules that government must follow and that the government must not violate those rights of the people.

For instance, the Bill of Rights refers to the right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects. If you agree with the concept of unalienable rights, you would have to acknowledge that ALL human beings have a right to be secure, a right that their persons not be molested, aggressed against by others including bureaucrats and their enforcers. And ALL human beings would then have a right that their personal effects, their personal property not be molested or violated by others.

As part of our rights to life and liberty, we all have a right to due process. Those who are accused of some violation against others have a right to require the accuser to bring evidence against the accused and prove it, openly, and the accused has a right to bring witnesses or evidence on his behalf as well. Many in America do not believe in that. They believe that government bureaucrats including Presidents can or should have the power to accuse individuals with no basis to back up their accusation, and tie the accused up, torture him, imprison him, or execute him, without trial, without due process. Those people, including former “Speaker” Newt Gingrich, do not believe in unalienable rights.

The Bill of Rights is not perfect. Some of the wording really sucks, such as the 2nd and 5th Amendments. The 2nd Amendment should just recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms, period. No reason for that other stuff. (The writers don’t define “militia,” or “regulated.” Not good.) The 5th Amendment says that government may not take your property for public use without just compensation, implying that “government may take your property in the absence of a voluntary contract, as long as the compensation is just.” So the 5th Amendment empowers the government to steal people’s property.

Anyway, people think like collectivists now, and it’s sickening. For instance, when government bureaucrats impose a ban on others traveling to wherever, others coming from specific areas in other parts of the world, that certainly is a policy of collectivism.

In other words, in the context of unalienable rights to life and liberty, if you don’t suspect someone of having violated the person or property of another, you morally don’t have the right or authority to interfere with that presumably innocent individual’s life, his liberty, his freedom of movement, freedom of association, his right to travel and right to seek a better life for himself and his family.

Leave innocent people alone. Presumption of innocence is a very important concept in a civilized society.

And we see in these terrible, inhuman policies America’s worship of central planning. Banning whole groups of people just because they happen to come from some certain area? According to the New York Times, “those challenging the travel ban said the court’s opinion would protect the vast majority of people seeking to enter the United States to visit a relative, accept a job, attend a university or deliver a speech. The court said the ban could not be imposed on anyone who had ‘a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States’.”

So, you really expect government bureaucrats — central planners — to determine who is coming to “visit a relative, accept a job, attend a university or deliver a speech”? No, if someone isn’t suspected of some kind of violation of the person or property of another, it’s no one else’s business what his purpose of travel is.

I know, collectivists who don’t believe in unalienable rights of the individual to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness don’t agree with me on that one.

Now, if you’re concerned that someone might try to come here to commit “jihad,” or some act of violence against innocents, and given that most such people have expressed U.S. foreign policy as a motivation for their retaliation, then tell our government to stop invading, occupying and bombing those other countries that it has been doing for decades and decades, since well before 9/11/2001, and stop murdering the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that our government and military have been doing for decades and decades. Ya think? You see, people don’t like it when foreign regimes like the one in Washington invade and bomb their countries, and so they retaliate. (Duh.) And worse, our government has been committing these criminal acts of violence against people of an extremely primitive, repressive culture over there in the Middle East and Asia. So poking already-barbaric hornets’ nests will be counter-productive, no? And that is why some people really believe that all this stuff, the U.S. invasions overseas for decades against the Muslim countries, has been because the planners knew that the Islamic-centered jihadi retaliation would be the kind of response to our government’s invasion that the invaders would get. George H.W. Bush was a CIA guy, after all. Prior to his 1991 war in Iraq that he started for no good reason, CIA-man Bush had to have meticulous knowledge of those cultures and given how primitive they were to see how easily manipulable they would be. And we can go back to the CIA’s installation of the Shah and their support of SAVAK in Iran from the 1950s to 1979. Yes, this crap goes way back.

So, in my view, it is immoral to interfere with or violate the lives of innocent people who are not suspected of anything, and the U.S. Constitution which includes the Bill of Rights does or should protect ALL human beings, regardless of where they’re from, or what country they are a “citizen” of.

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this: