At least in Las Vegas, most of the teachers in our illustrious school district smoke pot. The dealers offer home delivery too. Making it illegal just increases the cost and invites crime and cartels. Its the same as prohibition in the 30's. We shouldnt and in fact cant legistate what people put into their own bodies. Whether we like it or not.

I have been burglarized twice in the 39 years I've lived in Phoenix. I don't know anything about the citizenship of the burglars since they were never caught. The police came out and seemed to work hard to document the burglary but there was little they could do in the circumstances. That was disappointing but I certainly don't blame the immigration laws for it. As to the laws, they are strictly enforced at the border by the border patrol. Phoenix, as you know but others here may not, is well over a hundred miles from the border. The border patrol has no jurisdiction here. There are no doubt thousands of illegal aliens in the Phoenix area. Even if you find them, mere illegal presence is not sufficient to charge them with a felony. ICE merely begins the deportation process.Maybe this was the point you were making in your initial post. As to "catch and release" that is not the practice at the border, that's for sure. Dozens of arrests are made there daily for either the felony or misdemeanor offenses. The defendants are then processed and they almost always plead guilty to the misdemeanors. The felony defendants usually plead not guilty and hope to get a plea. They sometimes do, but often not. In any event, the system works pretty much the way you describe at the border.

Yes, there are laws and they are selectively enforced..in fact, ICE has been known not to pickup illegals from Phoenix PD or the Sheriff's department. Further, there is a practice of catch and release when it comes to illegals.

I am glad that you do not feel unsafe. I've lived in the same west valley neighborhood for 22-23 years and have seen and experienced much. And yes, illegals have entered my property, one was on my roof and another left a nice 8in carving knife on my rock front lawn about 6 feet from my bedroom window (cops did nothing, wouldn't even print it). Comforting.

Our current government gained in situ ownership from grants originally given by, purchased from, or conquest of lands claimed by European monarchs and emperors. If you look at the original grant for the state of Georgia, for example, the English king gave the rights to the colonists from the Atlantic shore to the Pacific (regardless of any other claims by other monarchs). Jefferson negotiated the purchase of the Louisiana territories from Napoleon. The Western territories were part of land taken as a result of the war with Mexico in 1846. Any grants for private ownership descended from claims made on North American territories by monarchs, claiming their right of ownership as granted them by God. Technically, there never were any "unclaimed" lands since this continent came to the attention of European explorers, funded by their respective monarchs.

Just to be clear. You are not advocating that anyone has unfettered access to any piece of property are you? Only their property I assume, and that the freedom to travel is only extended to public thoroughfares.

Actually the figure is 87% federal control. But it is not as simple as that. When we say that the feds "own" 87% of Nevada we are not yet saying which government has jurisdiction over these lands.

In 1956 Eisenhower ordered his administration to conduct an inventory of federal jurisdictions. A huge tome was then declassified in 1963. What it shows is flabbergasting. Federal jurisdictions stemming from land ownership is very limited. In my home county of Elko (northern Nevada) the feds have exclusive jurisdiction of ----- a third of a square mile. That is the parcel that the Post Office is on. This stems from Article I, Clause 8, Section 17, known as the Enclave Clause of the US Constitution.

Elko County, like the rest of the State of Nevada is dominantly public land. Ostensibly the feds owns these public lands, but as a proprietor only, like everyone else, and is subject to the laws of the State of Nevada. This is in the Eisenhower report.

But it is still not even that simple. With Nevada's enabling act for Statehood in 1864, the State agreed to relinquish claim to the unadjudicated public lands to the feds. Hence the feds claim to ownership as a proprietor. The intent was that the feds would provide mechanisms to privatize to individuals via Homestead Acts, Desert Land Entry Acts, Stone and Timber Acts, Mining Acts, etc. The intent was entirely based upon the original US philosophy that resources are best managed through private ownership by individuals. This more or less proceeded fairly orderly for the next 100 or so years. But then, in response to the ever escalating progressive calls for collectivization - that the public lands "belong to all us" -- the onslaught rise of the federal leviathan culminated in the passage of FLPMA in 1976. This Act for the first time purported to say that the feds will retain these lands in perpetuity. A reversal and betrayal of what was essentially a trust fund ultimately intended for the people as individuals.

This started the first Sagebrush Rebellion that in Nevada culminated in the Nevada Revised Statutes series 321 passed in 1979 and 1980 by the State legislature and signed into law. This statute laid State claim to all the public lands in the State of Nevada in the interest of individual US citizens. Privatization mechanisms would continue with similar means of disposing resources by proofs of beneficial use. This is actually based upon the US Constitutions Equal Footing Doctrine. This is very simple. Any new States admitted to the Union are admitted on an equal footing with the original 13 States. The original 13 did not have federal public lands. The States have merely to exercise their sovereignty.

The principal is simple. The history of obfuscation leading us to our current predicament in Nevada and other public lands states is horrendous and is the subject of a book I have been writing.

Fallacy. Medical Marijuana, my mom is on it, cost 200x the street amount in addition to a hefty permit fee. She buys it using her health care. The black market is still thriving enough that hundreds of kilo's are confiscated daily as they come into Phoenix. The "problem" will only take a new form, it will never go away. Besides, the last thing this country needs is more dumbed down and complacent voting base (my opinion), some who will require medical intervention for detoxification and overdoses.

make it 75 so I still have a few years. Make me into SOYLENT GREEN

WE should remove the illegality of drugs from US laws. That would put the cartels out of business pretty much overnight, and stop the violence that you fear.

Heard some conehead on Faux SNews the other day. Wishes we had more immigration. Thought there should be no borders. Wanted to reach in to the screen and pull his bow tie and ask: "No borders? How about taking the locks off your doors, then?"

This is already the law (see below). How's it working?

I too live in Phoenix and have never felt unsafe due to illegal immigration, but I understand your psychological state may be different from mine. However, I should point out that your "suggest[ion]"
is already the law. Unlawful re-entry after removal of an alien is indeed already a felony punishable by imprisonment of up to five years and a substantial fine. Many people so charged are also charged with a misdemeanor, unlawful entry, for the same act. The misdemeanor alone carries a penalty of up to 6 months (although that sentence is very rare for a first offense) and a potential fine (equally rare). I should also note that the vast majority of these defendants have gone nowhere near any private property. They are apprehended on government "owned" property in the desert. I hope this helps you.

There are worker programs, particularly in areas nearest Mexico for seasonal labor. However, there are federal parks in Penal county where signs are posted telling American citizens not to go there for fear of the Mexican drug cartels who have established footholds in our parks.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/18/...

its this commonplace, and this bad http://media.economist.com/sites/defa...

I'm truly happy that LV is less saturated by illegals (sincerely, no sarcasm), but that in no way diminishes the severe problem we have here AND the complicit federal governments active attempts to stop us from resisting. Literally American citizens are dying on a daily basis at the hands of those who shouldn't be here.

Some horribly flawed arguments in here.

"Your rights in say land are limited by the activity you undertook to obtain those rights."

Your rights to property are defined by what you lay claim to and the control you exercise over it, I agree. This is also usually extended to recognition by legal authority due to filed claims, etc. for external enforcement purposes (executive and judicial actions).

"It also does not mean you can put a huge pigsty on the edge your land next to your neighbor’s house."

This is the same logic the EPA uses to tell people they can control the waterways. It is a collectivist argument. You sure you want to go there?

"your property rights in land cannot be used to make someone a prisoner"

The first implied argument (sorely flawed) is that freedom of movement trumps property rights. This is nonsense. Property rights by definition mean control over and access to a physical entity delineated by boundaries. If you argue that one has the freedom to go wherever one desires regardless of anything else, you are arguing that there is in fact no private property because you are arguing the invalidation of jurisdictional boundaries of geography.

The second blatantly false assertion is that I am emprisoning or coercing someone else by refusing them permission to cross my land. This whole notion is patently absurd.

"self-ownership means that you can travel freely."

Not so. It means that one has actuation/control over one's own thoughts and to extension one's own body. However, the universe beyond that is not part of your inherent ownership, as it lies outside and distinct from you. That you have the ability to move is one thing. That you are permitted to move in a particular place is another matter entirely. Your argument is that the ability to move predicates the right to move anywhere one wishes. This is false. When one travels, one is asserting control over that territory - even if only briefly. But what happens when that claim of control is disputed? Who's use takes precedence? The owner's of course.

By your argument, I should be permitted to travel freely through Groom's Lake and Area 51 in Nevada - being public lands - and open a shop there for business. Yeah. Good luck with that.

"Property rights cannot be used to imprison someone or to keep two free people who want to meet or trade from doing so."

Again, you presume the right to passage through another's domain regardless of permission. In so doing, you completely eschew their property rights. You may have permission (such as in the case of general use or "public" property), but this is far from being a given. I would note that the Constitution specifically identified and prohibited the US government from placing restrictions on travel between the individual States, but made no such prohibition on travel outside the States.

"Public thoroughfares are controlled by the government. The government does not own these public thoroughfares, but it does police them."

Police can certainly haul away a broken-down car from the side of the road as a travel nuisance. They can put up traffic signals on roads to control and manage the flow of traffic. And are not all of these restrictions on use of "public" thoroughfares? Absolutely. Use is conditional - never absolute as your argument holds.

I live in Las Vegas, which doesnt have the same issues, so I havent experienced quite the same things as you have. If we allowed for work permits, but didnt require minimum wages be paid, it might encourage a slightly higher class of immigrants and no need to sneak across the border

Here is an island nation, call it Islandia ( http://www.professorsopportunities.co... ). Its land is owned by three people: A, B, and C. Its two roads, shown in red, are owned by the people whose land they cross, but maintained by the government of Islandia. They are toll roads, and anyone who is not a landowner and desires to use a road must pay.

I maintain that Islandia can deny access to anyone they want, and noone can set foot on their land without the permission of the land owner.

People, therefore, are not free to travel: they may not travel in Islandia for free.

But noone is being imprisoned by Islandia. And Islandia is not keeping two people from meeting - they can meet by simply traveling via water, or they can pay the toll and use the roads.

Now how does this differ if the size of a nation is increased, or the number of its property owners, or the number of roads?

Depends on where they want to conduct business. They don't have the right to do it on my front lawn without my permission. They certainly don't have the right to do it on my front lawn and demand that I provide food and water for them and then clean up the mess they leave when they're gone.

I live in New York and concur with you. It is my property and for the safety of my family I will confront and challenge --- by whatever means necessary.

While the imprisonment I suggest does cost us money, I recommend it (on the second violation) because of the many people who get deported only to come back immediately. By removing the economic motivation, actual decent folks seeking to make a better life for themselves of their family, wouldn't risk depriving their families of 6 months income.

The hope is that Mexico and other nations abusing our southern border would use their resources to provide legitimate documentation to help facilitate legal migration to the US to either work or eventually live. The hope is that dead bodies would stop being found in the Arizona desert. The hope is that crime would be reduced in Phoenix and other border States to the extent that the people of the US (Arizona) can move freely, with less concern of abuse, within their own land.

I am in a middle class neighborhood, I am scarcely safe in my home or the local park 1/4 mile from my home. My children, particularly my daughter, have never gone to the park alone, without adult supervision.

This is why we have philosophers I guess. This whole discussion kind of gives me a headache. We seem to have a decent definition of private property here in the USA, except when it comes to government ownership of land. As to immigration, I dont mind if people want to come here, but they must assimilate into OUR culture, speak OUR language, or go back to where you came from really and make THAT culture better.

I do see a large flaw in the authors argument....He sates..." There have been cases in which a person sold a land locked plot without an easement. The courts have uniformly ruled that there was an implied easement, because otherwise land would be an island or a prison and the sale of the land would have to be considered fraudulent. The sale of the land implies being able to use and access the land. "

however...just because someone buys land next to mine...that happens to be landlocked...it does not impose on me a duty to provide to him an access. He may well have been defrauded by the seller...but that has nothing to do with me and does not impose a duty upon me or make me a slave to the purchaser.

I say fences or even dogs do a great service in keeping private property available for a person's use who buys it.

I cant see letting anyone just go anywhere freely. Why have private property then. The hordes could just decide to camp out on my land and make it difficult for me to carry on my activities.. I could wind up with 50 immigrants just "moving in"- which I woudlnt like.

I have two pit bulls (friendly actually, but look menacing). I have NO problems with people coming uninvited onto my property. $20 a month in food fixes the problem. I agree with you that imprisonment isnt reasonable, or even practical, for an incursion onto my property.