26 votes

Judge Napolitano Shocks Fox Host: Immigration is ‘a Natural Right’

Fox Business Network host Stuart Varney was stunned on Monday to hear that former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano believed the federal government had no right to restrict immigration.

While discussing the latest plan for immigration reform, Napolitano doubted Republicans would “do the right thing” by expanding the freedoms of immigrants.

“If Stuart Varney & Company were a real company, lets say you were a small manufacturing company, you made widgets in northern New Jersey, you should be able to hire whoever you want,” Napolitano, the senior judicial analyst for Fox News, said. “As long as the person obeys the law and pays taxes what business is it of the federal government where they were born?”

“This is the natural law, a natural right,” he added. “Rights come from your humanity. It doesn’t matter where your mother was when you were born.”

Raw Story - http://s.tt/1z43t

Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1JVcS8tE2g

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If truth ever mattered

we would have to get our brain around the reality that borders are nothing but a way for the elite to divvy up tax slaves. I say the peasants should come and go as they pleas, but we REALLY need to stop the immigration from Goldman Sachs to DC.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Immigration and Freedom and Personal Responsibility and Accounta

Judge Napolitano needs to address personal responsibility and accountability in association with freedom. I believe most Americans would welcome others who demonstrate suitable character, but we need to eliminate entitlements and make everyone responsible and accountable for themselves and their families. How many people would come into America if there we no entitlements? Those people who would come here anyway are the kind of people Napolitano is talking about.

sorry judge

property rights are a natural right too.
when the government stops stealing my property to give to others, we'll talk.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

As someone mentioned below.. He never brought up the states.

Saying that though, He's dead on, except where he mentions taxes. Depends on what taxes they were paying. On labor.. No.

Doing away with the welfare state which I know he is in favor of, would put us all on equal footing.. where we should be. If they wanted to come over after that, I'm all for it.. Of course we'd still need to do away with this so called "foreign policy" they have in place.. It's doing nothing but making enemies. Opening your borders while pissing on your neighbors.. meh.. maybe not the greatest idea at present.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Right on Judge!

Perhaps now you will talk about the libertarian BLUE CARD idea...

Lets hope.


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

The Judge ...

... gets it.

I beleive

I beleive every person has the god given right to be here without "papers" or "documentation". The only reason people have become so angry toward "illiegal" immigration is do to the fact that our own government takes from us (taxes) and gives to them (medicare, welfare, and others). If the government did not supply these "handouts", then I beleive there would be less of a problem with immigrants. Lets not forget the minimum wage laws, which gives many businesses reason to hire "illiegal" immigrants at a lower wage. There are many quotes by are founding fathers on this issue, but one that stood out to me was this: "Our ancestors... possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as, to them, shall seem most likely to promote public happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:185, Papers 1:121

Not entitlements, just welfare

Technically, non-citizens pay into social security and medicare, but do not recieve it, unless it's something supplemental provided at the state level. It's welfare that they get.

I notice he only mentions the

I notice he only mentions the federal government, not the state governments.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

If only the Rand Paul

fanatics on this site could dump their prejudices and support a true defender of liberty for President in 2016: Judge Nap! He won't back down, you know where he stands, and he can inspire liberty inclined Democrats and Independents the way Ron Paul did. Please folks, don't blow the one chance we have left for liberty and peace.

I doubt you'd find a Rand

I doubt you'd find a Rand supporter who would be absolutist on the DP, they tend to be pragmatists. The opposite is more often true, you will find Rand Haters who are absolutist though.

Whats that famous line from Star Wars "Only the Dark Side Deals in Absolutes."

So be careful you Anakins out there. ;-)

Thank you Senator Kerry.


If by "Rand Haters who are absolutist" you mean "principled", or "constitutionalist", or "morally superior", then fine.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain



either one!

I support Rand, but I'd flippin go ecstatic for Judge Napolitano. Basically the way I see it, Rand intends to run, while the Judge has never expressed any interest. If he is convinced to run I will gladly support him. I have a feeling that if he thought about it he'd probably discuss it with Rand and they'd probably decide between themselves which of them to run because they know it's not a good idea to split the liberty vote (I suppose they could end up in the Gary Johnson & Ron Paul situation and both go into the early debates and one of them drop out early though)... ultimately I doubt we'll ever face a serious choice between the two, because I doubt they would really have any interest in running against each other.

I think he should run.

I don't think splitting the vote would be as important as having more liberty minded people speaking on a national platform. The Judge is also about as sharp as you can get. He'd be able to make constitutional adherence the focus of an election.

I wonder why no one ever

I wonder why no one ever pressed Ron Paul on the issue of immigration in the debates. He would always say that we need more and better "immigration people". I guess conservatives looked at that as saying he wanted tougher laws and border enforcement. But it seems he was really saying he wanted people to be able to get across the border more efficiently. Either Way it seemed like Ron didn't like to discuss the immigration issue that much. He'd always correctly point out that the weak economy was the reason for much of the discussion.

"Where liberty is, there is my country." -Benjamin Franklin

Yep, the only reason people

Yep, the only reason people really care about immigration is because of our welfare state and the economy.


End The Fed!
BTC: 1A3JAJwLVG2pz8GLfdgWhcePMtc3ozgWtz

He was asked and did address the issue several times.

His answers centered on dismantling the welfare state and trying to weed out the criminals who come here.

The "problems" of immigration are solved if you address those two issues.

Any other "problems" are merely xenophobes getting their panties in a bunch.

freedom of movement is essential to freedom!

YES! The judge is absolutely right here. This is actually the one thing that for me, Ron was not libertarian enough on. Although I always felt all that rousing up about bringing our military resources away from protecting the Afghan border to protecting our border was mostly just a politically expedient way of saying his anti-war position that was unpopular with mainstream republicans in a way that made it more palatable to them (by tying it into an issue they would agree with him on), it has always bothered me the suggestion that we would militarize our border.

I don't remember, but I think it might've actually been on the Daily Show of all places lol, or somewhere, that Rand actually said something more along the Judge's lines on immigration recently, is that true? I want to know where Rand stands on this, while it would be a point that would hurt him in the Primary, if he stands up on the correct side of this issue it's a way to really solidify his general election credentials, and his primary credentials are already starting to solidify with the way he bashed Clinton and talked up the Israel relationship recently so hopefully he'll do what's right in the Senate on immigration here.

oh, and the Judge is absolutely right that Obama's immigration executive order is actually a prime example of what executive orders are actually meant to look like, it's actually a form of nullification. just like a sherrif nullifying a federal law or a jury nullifying a law--simply refuse to enforce it. as people who believe in LIBERTY we should be very happy to hear about any law being nullified.

Migrating IS a natural right.

Migrating IS a natural right. Legal and natural are two different things. The former deals with civil law, the latter deals with birth right unaffected by law. The problem is some natural rights are recognized and protected by law, i.e. the Constitution, others are not.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Open migration brings to mind

Open migration brings to mind "squatters", "free roaming gypsies", "trespassers". Ideology is fine but there is a massive illegal immigration problem in America. I believe even Ron Paul at one of his debates had to admit "something had to be done". I agree with his premise that if you take away anticipated entitlements that others shall provide, the natural right of migration takes on a new meaning when it collides with the natural right to keep what you own and work for...including my own back yard and the livestock I need to raise and protect it from squatters and thieves that are growing abundant in our "decaying society".

On the contrary, the Constitution DOES recognize it.

Though it doesn't do so as explicitly as some others.

Congress was not given the power to restrict immigration.

They were given the power "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

This means they had the power to create ONE set of rules for ANYONE to become a Citizen, regardless of what State they did it in.

Otherwise, without this power, you might have one set of rules in Texas and a different set in New York, and on top of that, you might have different rules based on your country of origin or some other factor.

Congress was given the power essentially to make it EASIER to immigrate and naturalize by setting up a single standard for doing so.

Care to elaborate?

some natural rights are recognized and protected by law, i.e. the Constitution, others are not.

ecorob's picture

This is where you have to think for yourself...

C'mon, you can do it.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

I trust the judge is talking

I trust the judge is talking about legal immigration and does not endorse or align himself with the new amnesty bill for illegals that Obama is trying to pull off.

He's talking about how it is absurd that there is such

a thing as "illegal" immigration at all.

They are only "illegal" because we still have a useless and rather stupid "quota" system.

Sorry, no

The Judge is talking about freedom and individual liberty, as he always does.

You do know that Reagan gave amnesty to millions?

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

I'm with the Judge on this issue.

At least if millions of immigrants come here we won't have tens of millions more government terrorists employed if a lawful immigration policy was followed.

Yes sometimes foreigners will take "our jobs" - but in many cases turn jobs into businesses and start hiring a lot more people. Can't really blame them for hiring their own people since there are so few jobs available to them if they were looking themselves.

Lawful is ultimately about self-evident Natural Rights (the obvious right to exist) and then you have the Bible, Magna Carta, Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, Constitution for the United States of America.

Statues are internal agency rules which govern employee behavior. They have "force of law" on the "consent of the governed" (employees). The preceding is my best educated guess - not having thoroughly read/studied all of them - is that all these documents talk about LIMITING government power... not expanding it although in the constitution 2nd class "citizens" are created and then 2nd class citizenship is sold at wholesale prices.

Yes indeed.

Free immigration is central to liberty.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."