Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.
Hoo boy, this week's happy hour very nearly descended into a full-scale bar room brawl, even though we recorded in the morning over coffee instead of single-malts because John Yoo is still over in Rome! (And may not come back after this episode!)
After noting a few late breaking news stories, such as Harvey Mansfield's retirement and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema's surprise announcement that she's becoming an independent, we get down to the main event: Steve and Lucretia decided to contest John's recent National Review article that argues the states (such as Texas) have no power under the U.S. Constitution to prevent illegal immigration at the southern border. (See also Ed Erler's spirited attack on John here.)
Can the current surge of illegal border crossers be considered an "invasion" for constitutional purposes? And what has been the history of states actively managing immigration throughout U.S. history? Ultimately, however, our argument ascends (or descends?) into the wider issue of whether the Constitution can or should be understood primarily as a legal document, or as a political document. It's a familiar argument for regular listeners of this podcast, but the immigration controversy offers yet another portal into the issue.
Needless to say, perhaps, the exit music this week is . . . "Immigration Man."
Hosted by Steve Hayward, with guests JYJohn Yoo and "Lucretia"
Discussion (39)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I sense neither Lucretia or John are hitting the nail on the head. Agreeing with the sentiments of Lucretia, John's position, while squishy, would appear to be trying to set a stricter standard for "war" like declarations. Maybe we agree that something should be done this time; but what about the time when we DON'T agree something war like should be invoked?
I'm curious about linking this to the Opium Wars in China. I haven't studied it deeply but is there not some parallel here regarding our border and fentaynl? Could this be close enough to John's reasons and willingness to fight Al-Qaeda?
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I think this is what John is trying to avoid. If you're able to create emergencies over covid and so on which we do not agree with, we can't turn around and do the same for border policy. I'm uncomfortable with "they got to do covid so we get to do the border" arguments or some variant of.
That's why I think neither Lucretia or John are hitting the nail on the head.
There needs to be some other legal way to justify the action. Not sure what that is..
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I’m not talking tit for tat. John said it had been too long for the border situation to still be defined as an emergency, even though the numbers are clearly exponential and climbing (in effect telling southern governors to pound sand because time is different now). I brought up COVID because it was a created emergency based not on what actually had happened but on what might happen, and, yet, it has not ended even though it’s effectively been over—the emergency, that is—since summer/fall 2021. And the reason for the difference between the two situations is that emergency has come to be legally defined not so much by its proper meaning as by the actions of those willing to use—or not use—the word for their own political ends. (Edited)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Brava Lucretia, for insisting on the point that all illegal immigrants are criminals.
I'll add the questions " What sort of citizens could they ever become, with this entry into our society? Will this be the only crime they ever commit? "
You're seeing five of 39 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.