The 2nd amendment defines the right and the 9th and 10th deal with the rights not specifically mentioned. Driving would fall under that category.

That makes sense, the Constitution defines which rights can not be taken away by legislation. The 9th says that anything that is not explicitly outlawed by legislation is implicitly granted by the constitution.

Therefore, without a law saying you can't drive a car, you have the right to drive one. Thus far the laws saying you can't are limited to public areas, a minimum age requirement, and your competency as measured by the DMV.

Your driver's license doesn't give you the right to drive, it verifies that you meet the qualifications of age and competency required to drive in public areas.

Jaywalking is a safety issue just like going over the speed limit or driving drunk so that example doesn't work.

The 2nd amendment defines the right and the 9th and 10th deal with the rights not specifically mentioned. Driving would fall under that category.

The idea of driving as a privilege should be discarded from public discourse.

with regards to a right to walk in public, let me point out that I am not saying this is how things should be, merely how they are.

I dont know quite what you mean by a "definitive" right.

That's pretty simple- definitive means "defines" as in a right that is spelled out so people know exactly what it is (or at least have a basis for forming their arguments about what it means). The 2nd amendment is a defined right. Driving a car is not.

I dont need the permission of the government to walk in public, do I?

Pretty much, yeah. Notice that jaywalking is a crime. Now it isn't a crime that is taken very seriously and you aren't likely to be ticketed for it, but, yes, you apparently *do* need the government's implicit permission to walk in public, Tano.

That settled, the governments of people crossing illegally into the United States are actively encouraging the people to enter the United States. As former President Fox toured the U.S. during the previous go around actively supporting the right of foreigners to enter the country. Under the Mexican immigrations laws, where it states: visitors shall not interfere in the local Mexican politics, he was breaking his own law. These countries are dumping their losers on us.

Do We, The United States, owe the world a better life? If so, why are all the lefties protesting so vehemently the Iraq War.

I was in Vietnam and went through prostate cancer and was subsequently diagnosed with Myelodysplasia. Was Vietnam worth the effort? I thought so when I went and only regret we didn't finish the job

I dont know quite what you mean by a "definitive" right.
Let me walk you through my logic, so we can see where we might diverge.

I dont need the permission of the government to walk in public, do I? Is it a privilege? I dont think so, and for the purpose of moving this discussion along, I will provisionally assume that you dont either. Correct me if I am wrong.

Neither do I need permission to ride my bike. But when it comes to putting a big old engine 'round a heap of metal and barreling down the road at high speed, then maybe its no longer just about me, because my actions, or someone elses, can do great harm.

In those cases we sense the need to bring some order into a chaotic and dangerous situation. We use the mechanisms of government to set some rules - rules of the road, speed limits etc., and to demand some level of competence in handling these machines.

Thats it. A focused use of coercive communal power to achieve a social good - the enjoyment of cars, roads, travel by all. Free people coming together to solve a problem.

Thats what our system of government is supposed to be about, no? We revolted against a governmental system that was supposedly established through the will of god, to rule the peasantry. We said that government is something that should only exist as a function of OUR consent. When and where we feel a need for it.

A drivers licence is a certificate of competency that we grant the government the authority to test for and issue, so that our need for safety can be satisfied. It is not a permission slip from our lords and masters to exercise some privilege that they have the power to grant or withold for any other reason.

Tlaloc, I never realized you are a fellow Oregonian. It's a wonder we share the same state in peace.

Pretty much native. I was born in California but moved to Eugene (surprise!) when I was 2. Other than vacations and 6 months or so in the bay area I've been in Oregon ever since. I work in the Portland area now.

In fact you can read my take on the upcoming Smith election here:
The Smith Quandry

cause until I do,,,what?

I have no rights unless a Constitutional amendment specifies such a right? Is that your argument?

You don't have a definitive right, all you have is some supposed presumption of a right under the nebulous ninth. That and $3.50...

So, as I said, if you want driving to be a right you need to pass an amendment, because until you do...

(...nobody is going to give a damn about your opinion)

Actually, a couple of much better fixes are mentioned at a link found at that Cato piece -
http://www.freetrade.org/node/661

We know from experience that legal immigration, if allowed, will crowd out illegal immigration. In the 1950s, the Bracero program allowed Mexican workers to enter the country temporarily, typically to work on farms in the Southwest. Early in that decade, illegal immigration was widespread because the program offered an insufficient number of visas to meet the labor demands of a growing U.S. economy. Instead of merely redoubling efforts to enforce a flawed law, Congress dramatically increased the number of visas to accommodate demand. The result: apprehensions of illegal entrants at the border soon dropped by more than 95 percent. Back then, as we could expect now, foreign-born workers rationally chose the legal path to entry when it was available. When the Bracero program was abolished in 1964, illegal immigration began an inexorable rise that continues to this day.

It is far more difficult than necessary to be "legal" and since most "illegal" residents are gainfully employed and not particularly law-breaking other than by being here, re-start the "guest worker" program cancelled in the mid-Sixties and look at the "quota" system for actual naturalization immigration.

We don't have an amendment allowing us to ride a bike or make a living or do the normal things necessary for the pursuit of happiness. When will government get it? After we revoke our consent to be governed?

The licenses for illegals is one of those things (of which there are many) that I doubt there is an answer for. Both sides of the argument make sense and all points are sound. My question is whether or not the government solutions will do more harm than good.

Tlaloc, I never realized you are a fellow Oregonian. It's a wonder we share the same state in peace.

I have no rights unless a Constitutional amendment specifies such a right? Is that your argument?

Read the ninth amendment.
Read Madison.
Meditate on what being free means.

An interesting frame, representing an authoritarian attitude. Once you conceive of something as a privilege, you set up the authority-subservient relationship. On the other hand, viewing driving as a regulated right is more in line with the notion of a free people, freely going about their lives, freely traveling using the technologies at hand, and granting to the government some power to regulate that activity, in terms of demanding proof of competence, to meet the limited goals of public safety. I prefer the latter frame.

Then pass an amendment saying driving is a right, cause until you do...

An interesting frame, representing an authoritarian attitude. Once you conceive of something as a privilege, you set up the authority-subservient relationship. On the other hand, viewing driving as a regulated right is more in line with the notion of a free people, freely going about their lives, freely traveling using the technologies at hand, and granting to the government some power to regulate that activity, in terms of demanding proof of competence, to meet the limited goals of public safety. I prefer the latter frame.

"So, by having a license to drive, you agree to sucumb to your states laws on driving responsibly, etc. "

That is true for either frame.

"They want the workers without going through proper channels and that is the cux of the illegal immigration debate."

Not exactly. The proper channels - i.e. immigrant quota systems calibrated to the needs of our economy for unskilled, or low skilled labor, do not exist. THAT is the crux of the problem.

The rational basis for setting immigrant quotas is the needs of the economy. But it is never politically popular to let in poor, unskilled workers. So the quotas are absurdly low, and the joint needs of business and the workers are realized outside the legal framework.

The right is basically willing to use the government to snuff the life out of small business in this country by enforcing archaic and irrational quotas, for no other reason that the quotas exist at the level that they do. Why not just solve this problem by establishing legal channels for a sufficient number of people to come, given the needs of the economy?

Expired? What's up with that? After so many months you stop being you???

I'm the ghost in the system. Along with a secret decoder ring, all us anarchists get a special ATM code that shreds all the government's records of us ever existing.

ATMs can do that, didn'cha know?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/vc/murders/vc_murders.htm

Mexican citizens make up 42% of the total and 84% of ALL foreign nationals on the list. That's insane. The number of *Americans* on the list isn't much different from the number of Mexicans.