You're watching...
FOX News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano explains the legality of President Obama’s proposed immigration reform.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Thorny topic well joining me now is Fox News senior judicial analyst and the author rob Theodore and would roll out to American president's destroyed.
Constitutional freedom.
Judge -- to -- top.
Judge that it would got all the proposals the president senators all these proposals are coming forward and immigration.
Do you see -- legal problems with some of the proposals that they're making.
Well there's a host of legal problems because and a lot of these proposals Tom are based upon the political interests of the people making them.
Rather than -- reality of the law on the ground.
And -- valuable on the ground as is law and economics.
-- when when people who are here illegally are permitted to stay.
Does that help the economy because that they can now well work and pay taxes and eventually vote or does it hurt the economy.
Because they might be a drain on the entitlement system to which many.
Facets of our society have become custom right.
How severe should the issue with the border be.
Do we want to if -- ever gonna allow the thirteen million that are here.
We've got here illegally to stay here what about the next wave of thirteen million that are right behind them and what about the thirteen million that preceded them.
Who -- for more rigorous procedure before they became its lawful residents and citizens so.
A lot of these things will be debated you know this is a very very.
Difficult subject matter.
In in the earliest days of the country.
The federal government welcomed anybody that wanted to come there -- there was a time in the Lincoln era when the government would even give immigrants who came here.
A couple of acres of free -- if they could demonstrate that they were going to.
Formally and that's so -- -- would have people here and well quotas.
Or going getting the government's permission before traveling here.
Didn't begin until the late eighteen hundreds when California wanted to stop people coming in from China.
They looked different they sounded different -- different culture.
And we didn't want them in our midst.
That attitude they -- different they sound different we don't want them here.
Two day by our eyes seems repugnant.
It seems based on bias and prejudice and ignorance and and stereotypes.
Nevertheless that persists.
It persists among the public -- -- SS and invading the law because the law consists of quotas and the people who are troublesome to the law have breached -- quotas by getting here notwithstanding the quotes.
So if that.
At one point you're saying this country was open borders yes and that brings up in the moral.
Ethical human part of this while the human part of it is the in the natural law argument.
And the natural law is is a phrase used to identify those aspects of our humanity where we are free to make all of our own choices.
We don't need the government's permission we are free to develop -- personalities as we see that we're free to think as sweet as we wish to say what we think.
To publish what we say we are generally free to marry whoever we want we used to be free.
To use the content most contemporary technological means to defend ourselves we used to be free to own and trade -- use private property to its highest good.
We theoretically -- are free to travel.
As Ronald Reagan used to say to vote with your feet.
To move from New Jersey to New Hampshire from Massachusetts to Pennsylvania.
To leave the country to come into the country because the right to travel freedom of movement as a natural right.
That the government doesn't have the ability interfere with on the basis of a group to which we -- the government can restrict my freedom.
If I commit a crime and -- to be punished for of course but the government cannot restrict my freedom because of the place where my mother was.
At the time of my birth.
So the natural law argument says.
Anyway that wants to come here and content doesn't mean they're entitled to the government's benefits but it does mean that the government can't criminalize the act -- coming from but isn't can't punish them for coming.
Aren't you.
-- -- debt basically open borders cash which our country used to have yes it is open borders I know that this is unpopular in May be unpopular with a lot of -- viewers.
But open borders is it perfectly legitimate.
Sound.
Long time acceptable argument.
And an open borders was an argument made by saint Thomas wind hasn't seen a custom and John Locke Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King John Paul the second and justice Clarence Thomas.
Not necessarily open borders.
But freedom of travel open borders as a sophisticated modern day argument articulated by our cousins in this building the Wall Street Journal.
Who have demonstrated over and over and over again.
That the more people who are here from other countries willing to do menial work.
At them at menial pay the better off our economy is that -- that is beyond dispute.
And and that people who reject that argument I suggest -- rejected because of native -- A belief that Americans have more rights than others that's hogwash we all have the same -- for rates we have more of an opportunity.
To exercise -- rates here because the government theoretically is restrained by the constitution but in terms of the rights that come from our humanity.
Are all the same heritage of us is the same.
I'm that'd take the other big buzz story of the week go from immigration.
To gun control where you're not afraid to test the third reason -- have well I have I haven't gotten a gay marriage or abortion.
But.
The head out there if you wanna cut Cadillac but -- but the question is is is dead.
We're take taking everybody -- a law abiding citizen insane if you have a gun you have to register we're taking all the -- -- the people that came into this country without going through the immigration law and saying you have to register.
In other words should we just focus on the people that commit the crimes rather than all the citizens might have noticed.
-- -- are -- are very unique as a television person.
-- an extensive background law enforcement and I -- different to as a television person with an extensive background in law enforcement -- in California -- New Jersey.
We both -- and that up in the same place.
The before they commit a crime then you can have societies like that but they are terribly impressive not free at all.
They arrested before you commit a crime in Russia they did in the old east Germany they do in.
In North Korea would we be safer if the police are just confiscate guns and anybody they thought were dangerous yes we book.
But who would protect us from the government front of police who would wanna live -- in a society like that so again the natural law.
Says you have the right to defend yourself.
And you have the right to use the most contemporary.
Technological means to do it stated differently the same firepower that the government acts so when the president says.
He's -- hunter.
Because he shoots skeet at Camp David but -- -- for shooting -- to great sport and he should have familiarity.
With guns I think most adults have familiarity with guns but that is not the reason for the second.
The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to shoot skeet or to protect -- rate issue here.
It was written to protect your right to shoot the bad guys when the police can't or won't he and this is a hard and difficult truth.
It was written to protect your right to -- tyrants when they take over the government of the authors of the second Amanda.
Had just fired their guns that -- -- a soldier because he was a tyrant that's -- soldiers because he was a tyrant and -- -- -- and that's why we don't sound like Barney.
That's what we sound like the way we but -- -- -- -- Which bottom line is no matter whether it's guns or travel it's freedom and always always a appreciate your view -- judge thanks you --
