PaperDetective

Tea Parties vs. Open Immigration. My contradiction and dilema.

205 posts in this topic

On a lighter note, elements of Hispanic culture that I do like having imported into America: http://maps.google.com/places/us/tx/lubboc...hl=en&gl=us

That "dive" remains to be one of my favorite restaurants. Locally owned and operated by a Mexican family, all the waitresses are Mexican, and all the patrons are Mexican. Immigration isn't bad: we just need more "Picantes" and less Reconquistas and MS-13's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that my personal history (much of which is unknown on THE FORUM) has been dragged into the chaos. Even as polemical gimmick, it is not relevant here, for I do not stand to profit from "amnesty" nor am I under any threat of anti-immigrant force. And it is not that my "fortunes" have diminished significantly (in fact, my annual savings have substantially increased since my move to Canada). Canada is not the U.S., but it is not so different as to keep me in trauma. I write all this for the benefit of the newcomers here.

There is a personal dimension to this, yes, but not especially more than the tax-slave who opposes the IRS or the beleaguered home-owner who fights the environmentalists. The personalization of an evil does not attenuate its philosophical importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you responded to a post while quoting the alleged "denial of reason", your statements would be clear. Which post or posts are you referring to?

I think my post is quite clear, especially as those to whom I refer know what I am talking about. There is a long history of these immigration debates on THE FORUM. If you are new here, kindly use the 'Search' feature to look up "Immigration."

The intended targets of the posts with these vague, sweeping insinuations against unspecified targets which he refuses to clarify are obviously not "clear". I is, however, at least partially clear why. There is nothing to quote that justifies such attacks.

Since the original insinuations were formatted in the context of a 'reply' to my post, I will point out that it took words out of context from it in the ensuing diatribe. Carlos also responded to that. It ought to be clear that the increasingly strident attacks now escalated into claiming his targets "deny reason and individuals" are baseless rhetoric that has no place here.

The 'history' of discussions of immigration on the Forum which occasionally erupt in these emotional explosions, now with quadruple size fonts in place of objectivity, do not in fact include advocacy of banning immigration. They do, including those by Stephen, include defense of objective procedures required for entering the country and obtaining citizenship under the law, especially during a time of war when terrorists are openly attacking the country as well as the context of a flood of illegal entry resulting in overwhelming "social services" at taxpayer expense.

Mercury has suffered personal circumstances not of his own making. We can all sympathize with him and would like to be able to help. But in the context of these discussions, which is the level at which most of use are trying to remain within, there is no "right" to anarchy. The concept of legality is not a violation of morality or rights or a denial of reason and individuals. Quite the contrary. Ayn Rand, like the rest of us, strongly supported immigration. She was an immigrant herself. She was not an anarchist.

I see that my personal history (much of which is unknown on THE FORUM) has been dragged into the chaos. Even as polemical gimmick, it is not relevant here, for I do not stand to profit from "amnesty" nor am I under any threat of anti-immigrant force. And it is not that my "fortunes" have diminished significantly (in fact, my annual savings have substantially increased since my move to Canada). Canada is not the U.S., but it is not so different as to keep me in trauma. I write all this for the benefit of the newcomers here.

There is a personal dimension to this, yes, but not especially more than the tax-slave who opposes the IRS or the beleaguered home-owner who fights the environmentalists. The personalization of an evil does not attenuate its philosophical importance.

The genuine sympathy with your personal plight is not a "political gimmick", it has not been "dragged into chaos", and no one referred to your "fortunes". Your personal situation is more than enough reason for you to be especially concerned with the topic, but none of that justifies the unfounded accusations against Forum members claimed to "deny rationality and deny the individual" and the rest of those speculative accusations. I am glad you are doing reasonably well in Canada. You are, in fact, one of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sure that there are in fact a significant number of collectivists among the immigrants from Latin America. But even assuming that they constitute a majority of the immigrants, does restricting immigration really solve the problem? I think that restricting immigration is a dead end.

Immigration is only a problem in countries with systems that allow people to vote away individual rights, i.e. democracies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[i think this is making an unwarranted package-deal

Individual people participate in tea parties for a wide variety of reasons so it is a mistake to overgeneralize about all of them or about the tea party movement. Some there are single-issue protesters for different issues. Some are unclear as to their goals but want to do something to express their general displeasure with current political trends. Some are open to Objectivist ideas and some are not.

I'm not sure from your assigning different intents to the Tea party activists, where the 'unwarranted package deal' so 'overgeneralilizing' comes in. If we disqualify the concept that 'supporting a group's goals' is not 'sanctioning', how can we ever hold someone accountable for his choices?

The moment someone actively becomes part of a 'group' and expresses support for that group, he becomes a sanctioner of the policies and activities of that group and can be held accountable. Obviously I am not referring to a 'one time demonstrator' as that was not the context I gave. I was talking about 'actively supporting the activities of the Tea Parties'.

The 'end' of wishing to meet and help some open minds, for me, does not justify 'the means' of being part of the sacrifice of the (illegal) immigrants' right to their life nor do I feel it is right to sacrifice the rights of US employers and home owners wanting to trade with them.

In the health care debate on the other hand I saw an Objectivist leader of ARI staying out of the actual political activities of political parties, so not sanctioning, but always offering her services to the political group(s) on a case by case basis 'from the outside'. I personally find that controlled independent approach a better way to keep one's values protected, insteda of becoming an active member of a (tea) party.

Incidentally, there were over 400 people at the Thousand Oaks, CA tea party and I don't recall seeing a single anti-immigration sign.

I'm sure there are or were exceptions to the long, although not exhaustive, list above of anti-illegal immigrant tea party activities across the nation that were not anti-illegal immigration related, but one cannot ignore the evidence of 'anti-illegals activity substance' I gave, based on incidental differences.

Also, the fact remains that the tea party movement, so a big chunk of tea parties, is getting increasingly involved in the anti-illegal immigration drive. A 'zero-immigration' proponent like national politician Tom Tancredo has not hooked up with the Tea Party, because a few cooks who would be against illegals. Being anti-illegals is main stream now, as it is main stream in America in general. The recent Gallup/USA poll of May 1/2, 2010 illustrates this, with about 2/3 of Americans opposing illegal immigrants and attributing all kind of totally unwarranted qualifications to them.

My point is that, with all the good initial intentions, of demonstrating for limiting government, the Tea Party organizations are now heading for 'more government'. The only things is that the Tea Partiers delude themselves that it is that being 'anti-llegals' is not 'more government' in their lives, but only in the immigrants' lives. This is a typical attitude in a society that succumbed to statism (attitude of 'get the other guy not me). Additionally most Americans seem to miss that they are frequently affected by government intervention in immigration, because it raises the cost of labor and of products and decreases the tax base, home buyers market, health care providers etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what the argument is behind 3 links to the leading national propagandist against illegal immigrants, Michelle Malkin.

I figured a leading, brave and objective reporter such as Michelle Malkin would deserve at least a better smearing than this.

Did you copy-paste that from the Huffington Post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what the argument is behind 3 links to the leading national propagandist against illegal immigrants, Michelle Malkin.

They are the kind of reports that the mainstream media remain in total silence about, that Americans need to know about.

Surely I don't need to explain to an Objectivist or Ayn Rand fan the startling implications of the fact that a public school would send kids home for wearing clothing with American flags, because they weren't sensitive enough to immigrant's feelings concerning a holiday celebrating a different country. It is not the public school's right nor responsibility to force your children to celebrate holidays pertaining to a different country and a different culture, and to literally suppress expressions of patriotism for this country, the one they are living in. This is the operational definition of cultural submission, of cultural cowardice, of multiculturalism.

The other reports are on the "la Raza" Reconquista movement, that if not for brave journalists such as Michelle Malkin, Americans would never know about. The only supposedly "violent radical protesters" the mainstream media cares about are Tea Partiers.

That obnoxiously demonstrating for the Reconquista movement has become culturally acceptable, and that patriotism for America is becoming culturally unacceptable, should be known by average Americans, and reporters such as Michelle Malkin make this possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure from your assigning different intents to the Tea party activists, where the 'unwarranted package deal' so 'overgeneralilizing' comes in. If we disqualify the concept that 'supporting a group's goals' is not 'sanctioning', how can we ever hold someone accountable for his choices?

The moment someone actively becomes part of a 'group' and expresses support for that group, he becomes a sanctioner of the policies and activities of that group and can be held accountable. Obviously I am not referring to a 'one time demonstrator' as that was not the context I gave. I was talking about 'actively supporting the activities of the Tea Parties'.

The 'end' of wishing to meet and help some open minds, for me, does not justify 'the means' of being part of the sacrifice of the (illegal) immigrants' right to their life nor do I feel it is right to sacrifice the rights of US employers and home owners wanting to trade with them.

The 'illegal' in 'illegal immigrants' is not parenthetical. No one's rights are being sacrificed when thieves, con-artists, murders, etc. etc. are in jail rather running loose on the streets either, and laws governing the procedures for immigrating and obtaining citizenship are obviously not "sacrificing the immigrants' right to their life".

In the health care debate on the other hand I saw an Objectivist leader of ARI staying out of the actual political activities of political parties, so not sanctioning, but always offering her services to the political group(s) on a case by case basis 'from the outside'. I personally find that controlled independent approach a better way to keep one's values protected, insteda of becoming an active member of a (tea) party.

One does not become a 'member' of a tea party. The tea parties are protests against statism in government, not 'political parties' one joins. The people attending have different levels of understanding and different interests. It is a good place for someone who knows what he is talking about to help them understand more.

Incidentally, there were over 400 people at the Thousand Oaks, CA tea party and I don't recall seeing a single anti-immigration sign.

I'm sure there are or were exceptions to the long, although not exhaustive, list above of anti-illegal immigrant tea party activities across the nation that were not anti-illegal immigration related, but one cannot ignore the evidence of 'anti-illegals activity substance' I gave, based on incidental differences.

Betsy wrote that she did not see a single anti-immigration sign. You continue to equivocate between legal and illegal immigration. This has been explained to you previously and you continue to ignore it.

Also, the fact remains that the tea party movement, so a big chunk of tea parties, is getting increasingly involved in the anti-illegal immigration drive. A 'zero-immigration' proponent like national politician Tom Tancredo has not hooked up with the Tea Party, because a few cooks who would be against illegals. Being anti-illegals is main stream now, as it is main stream in America in general...

So what? Your premise that there is something wrong with recognizing the big problem of illegal aliens is false. This has been pointed out to you several times and you continue to repeat yourself as if nothing had been said and no discussion were necessary. This repetition of your unsubstantiated premise makes it appear that you are oblivious to the responses to you explaining why your position has been rejected, and is beginning to look obsessive. The "contradiction and dilema " you claimed in the opening of the thread are your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what the argument is behind 3 links to the leading national propagandist against illegal immigrants, Michelle Malkin.

Citing the links was not an "argument".

They were provided so that you can read what is on the pages they link to. You click on a link and then read the page that appears. When you are finished you click on the next link, etc.

The "propaganda" in the images is not from Michell Malkin; they are images of multicultural leftist radicals displaying their own violence and anti-American propaganda as they demand to obliterate American sovereignty. One of them shows the contrast of how Americans are being coercively denied their freedom of speech for daring to display an American flag because it 'offends' Mexicans.

Didn't you bother to look before posting that you aren't "sure"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That last link was especially troubling. I knew things were bad - but not THAT bad. This is insane.

What's wrong with you? Get with the times rtg24: patriotism is a hate crime, but anarchists and communists rioting and vandalizing businesses is a "peaceful demonstration" with "cultural value".

One of the links detailed Hispanic crowds rioting and attacking everyone they spontaneously decided was "racist":

LISA AMIN GULEZIAN, REPORTER: Allan, for the most part the event was peaceful, but just about an hour ago, three people were attacked and two others were arrested. The people who were assaulted were part of the Minutemen demonstration in favor of Arizona’s new immigration law.

They said a large group of immigrants’ rights supporters followed them to the BART station on Market Street and started punching and kicking them, and calling them names.

PARKER WILSON, BAY AREA ANARCHIST: They said we were racists, and that we were against them, and against their town, and against San Francisco, and what they were saying. They said we needed to get out and they called us racists, and that we need to go home. And then they just attacked my friends and me.

Downtown business owners spent Sunday repairing shattered windows and doors after a May Day rally Saturday night turned into a riot with approximately 250 people marching along Pacific Avenue, some carrying makeshift torches, throwing large rocks and paint bombs, and spray-painting walls with graffiti.

At least 18 businesses suffered damage during the rally in honor of international workers that began at 9 p.m. and escalated into mayhem around 10:30 p.m., police said. Investigators estimated damage at $100,000, though some business owners said it could be more. No injuries were reported.

On Sunday, sea green-colored glass littered sidewalks where windows and glass doors had been smashed. Maintenance workers, many getting called in the middle of the night, boarded up windows with plywood until new sheets of glass could be installed.

The vandalized businesses included Urban Outfitters, Peet’s Coffee, Noah’s Bagels, Jamba Juice, Velvet Underground and Dell Williams Jewelers. The unoccupied Rittenhouse building also was damaged. A police car was vandalized with rocks and paint, department spokesman Zach Friend said.

Apparently this movement is a nexus of sorts between radical Che-commies and racist Hispanics. They feed young Hispanics the lie that America was stolen from innocent Aztecs, and that America, Whites, and Capitalism are intrinsically racist and exploiting Hispanics everywhere. Of course the only solution is revolución against the gringos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently this movement is a nexus of sorts between radical Che-commies and racist Hispanics. They feed young Hispanics the lie that America was stolen from innocent Aztecs, and that America, Whites, and Capitalism are intrinsically racist and exploiting Hispanics everywhere. Of course the only solution is revolución against the gringos.

Note also in the pictures protestors holding up signs that depict an enlarged Mexico, where the border has shifted northwards, enveloping Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. The explicit goal is annexing southwestern US into Mexico through massive immigration and/or revolution and political reform. All for some brown-skinned equivalent to the racist 3rd Reich, where Hispanics can restore their former promised land of the Aztecs or Aztlan or whatever that "whitie" apparently stole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On this thread, the anti-immigrant types have come out (as I have come to expect over the years) to defend one of the uglier aspects of the conservative movement.

The argument this time is that the "illegal" immigrants are invading America to be used as voting ballast in Obama's irreversible Leftist agenda, and that "illegal" immigrants do not know anything about the American Dream and would vote away individual rights in America because they are uneducated and unable to support themselves on the below minimum wage they make, and that "illegal" immigrants are not moral egoists because they only love living in phenomenal America not America as it really is, and that "illegal" immigrants are killing Americans on the U.S./Mexico border, and that "illegal" immigrants would have to suffer the violation of their moral rights so that the moral and civil rights of other men are respected, etceteram, etceteram, etceteram.

Usually, I would address these points one by one, spending my own time graciously showing the error of the thinking. But, I have now realized that it is not reason that makes people say these things about "illegals," so reason will not work on them.

I stand by my statements. If men deny reason and deny the individual, so be it.

If you believe that, why did you feel the need to post that? To announce to everyone that they are unreasonable men, without evidence to back it up?

Your argument looks to me like it can be summarised as "They say this, therefore they are irrational."

It looks like a smear attack to me, and I know what I call a man who makes such a smear attack, without debating something.

Do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The replies already made have addressed your concerns, but I will address two points in your posts:

1) The definition of open immigration.

2) The question of whether immigration must follow certain rules.

On the other hand, I encounter a growing discomfort with the Tea Party groups developing into a strong basis for anti-immigrants, so anti-illegal aliens and anti-open immigration.

1) You mention open immigration but I haven't been able to find a clear definition of it. What do you mean by it? "Open" sounds like it means "unrestricted" going by the entry in Wikipedia, which itself is not well defined. And if one agrees with placing restrictions on the basis of crime or illness, why use the word "open"?

The 'end' of wishing to meet and help some open minds, for me, does not justify 'the means' of being part of the sacrifice of the (illegal) immigrants' right to their life nor do I feel it is right to sacrifice the rights of US employers and home owners wanting to trade with them.

2) This point appears to be the bigger misunderstanding in this thread. If allowing immigration is part of a country's policies -- and considering the number of productive people in the world I certainly think it should be -- it is most certainly necessary to have some system in place, having some restrictions (as above). If there is no system at all immigration becomes unrestricted. An unrestricted barrage of people into a country makes national security meaningless and local security a nightmare, as evidenced by the real-life examples of criminal gangs and the border towns.

Have you considered why the overwhelming majority of immigrants wish to migrate in the first place, moving halfway across the world leaving behind everything they've grown up with? Their rights may have been violated all right, but not by the citizens of a country they haven't even gotten into.

U.S. employers and homeowners trade with outsiders all the time. That's how goods are imported and exported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's wrong with you? Get with the times rtg24: patriotism is a hate crime, but anarchists and communists rioting and vandalizing businesses is a "peaceful demonstration" with "cultural value".

Actually, that reminded me. In France, any prominent display of the national flag is immediately and automatically associated with the fascists of the FN (http://www.lepoint.fr/content/system/media/LePenprog.jpg); even military personnel and veterans hesitate displaying it (so it is very rare to see a French flag in France, except in front of the City Hall or at the back of sailing vessels). Contrast this with the US where (at least in the sane parts) many citizens enjoy raising the flag in their garden in the morning, because it means something to them (something that was mocked on French TV at least twice that I recall - look at these crazy patriotic Americans).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laws are not 'statist' for being laws. "We" are not fighting statism and collectivism with "more statism and collectivism".

We can be glad that your wife was able to legally immigrate to Sweden but this has nothing to do with the facts of what is happening due to the flood of illegals into the US, which fact has been pointed out to you previously and which you do not address. Nor is your marriage to a legal immigrant a defense of your own social democracy advocacy that anyone should be able to come here and vote to change the government to more collectivism and statism. Nor does it address the rejection of that and the rationalistic claims that opposition to this is somehow to be construed as a "collectivist premise".

I dispute your premise that I am being rationalistic when I claim that some of the posts here against free immigration were on a *collectivist premise*. At least one of the posts, which I was responding to, talked of illegal immigrants "invading" the USA. I take the concept "invasion" to mean a deliberate, organized entry of hostile aliens into the country, led by a foreign government. Now the person who wrote that post (I do not remember right now if it was you, ewv) was speaking figuratively, of course. But he must have intended the word "invasion" to *connote* the idea of an organized entry of hostile aliens into the country. And I take that as showing that the author of the post *was* on a collectivist premise.

I wonder if not people here on the forum sometimes use the term "rationalistic" as a sweeping accusation to disarm their opponents? I really do not understand why I am so often accused of being rationalistic here. Yes, I know, it is conceivable that I am rationalistic, and that I am so "deep" into rationalism that I am blind to my own rationalism, that I am delusional even. But I don´t see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 'illegal' in 'illegal immigrants' is not parenthetical. No one's rights are being sacrificed when thieves, con-artists, murders, etc. etc. are in jail rather running loose on the streets either, and laws governing the procedures for immigrating and obtaining citizenship are obviously not "sacrificing the immigrants' right to their life".

Depicting all illegal immigrants in such a bad way is untrue propaganda talk, which attempts to depict ALL illegal immigrants as murderers, rapists thieves etc., while these are truly largely innocent people wanting to work and live here to create a better life for themselves at no one's expense but their own labor.

One does not become a 'member' of a tea party. The tea parties are protests against statism in government, not 'political parties' one joins.

Untrue. The tea parties are now virtually all 'organized political groups with political leaders, political policies, political web sites, political activities etc.

The people attending have different levels of understanding and different interests.

No one disputes hat people have different interests. All political parties have such people. I am concerned about specific political interests and political activities performed by part of these people under the umbrella of the tea parties they joined. The facts of this have not been disproved above.

You continue to equivocate between legal and illegal immigration. This has been explained to you previously and you continue to ignore it.

Not sure where you get that I am stating that legal and illegal immigration are entirely equal, but in the USA illegal and legal immigrants are indeed being treated the same way, as 'criminals. '. An legal immigrant gets abused under our current immigration laws as if he is a bad guy and our anti-immigration laws look at the illegals as if they are criminals, while they are not, since the grand majority of them do not violate any life nor property of a US citizen. If anything, illegals are less prone to crime because they have more to lose than citizens. And please spare me the false use of them 'trespassing'. Trying to criminalize what is not truly a crime, since there is no true trespassing (the country is not owned by you), does not work with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depicting all illegal immigrants in such a bad way is untrue propaganda talk, which attempts to depict ALL illegal immigrants as murderers, rapists thieves etc., while these are truly largely innocent people wanting to work and live here to create a better life for themselves at no one's expense but their own labor.

Equally bad is the practice of repeatedly misunderstanding the posts as written by other members here:

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...st&p=104623

The posters here have made it clear not to generalize, and have differentiated that not all immigrants are socialist cut-throat gang-members, but rather some are good, honest and hardworking. Hell, my family harbored an illegal alien on our farm for years until the person could get legal status as a citizen. I am dating and live with a foreigner. If you are trying to pigeon-hole us as "ignorant conservative anti-immigrant racists" you don't know what you are talking about or who you are talking to.

No one has said all immigrants, legal or illegal, are "murderers, rapists thieves etc". What has been observed is that a significant number of them are, and that it is apparently politically incorrect to observe this fact. Indeed, merely observing this fact can apparently draw backlash and polemics from all sides, Objectivist and Leftist.

The fact is that many vicious cut-throat gangs in America were literally created by immigration, probably due to the Mexican-American border effectively being in anarchy.

The Mara Salvatrucha gang originated in Los Angeles, set up in the 1980s by Salvadoran immigrants in the city's Pico-Union neighborhood who immigrated to the United States after the Central American civil wars of the 1980s.[5][6]
(click)

Observing facts and placing them in their proper context isn't "propaganda".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[i think this is making an unwarranted package-deal

Individual people participate in tea parties for a wide variety of reasons so it is a mistake to overgeneralize about all of them or about the tea party movement. Some there are single-issue protesters for different issues. Some are unclear as to their goals but want to do something to express their general displeasure with current political trends. Some are open to Objectivist ideas and some are not.

I'm not sure from your assigning different intents to the Tea party activists, where the 'unwarranted package deal' so 'overgeneralizing' comes in. If we disqualify the concept that 'supporting a group's goals' is not 'sanctioning', how can we ever hold someone accountable for his choices?

My point was that tea parties are not "groups" in that sense. They are not united by any common ideology. They do have some common goals like opposition to Obama in general and government spending, particularly bailouts and ObamaCare, but even that is not 100%.

The moment someone actively becomes part of a 'group' and expresses support for that group, he becomes a sanctioner of the policies and activities of that group and can be held accountable. Obviously I am not referring to a 'one time demonstrator' as that was not the context I gave. I was talking about 'actively supporting the activities of the Tea Parties'.

I do actively support opposition to Obama, bailouts, and ObamaCare and so do all Objectivists.

Incidentally, there were over 400 people at the Thousand Oaks, CA tea party and I don't recall seeing a single anti-immigration sign.
I'm sure there are or were exceptions to the long, although not exhaustive, list above of anti-illegal immigrant tea party activities across the nation that were not anti-illegal immigration related, but one cannot ignore the evidence of 'anti-illegals activity substance' I gave, based on incidental differences.

I think you can because immigration is just not an important issue at tea parties. As evidence, I offer The Contract From America (link). It was created by polling tea party participants and members of tea party organizations, listed on the web site, for the Top 10 issues they wanted their elected representatives to address.

Immigration isn't even mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure where you get that I am stating that legal and illegal immigration are entirely equal, but in the USA illegal and legal immigrants are indeed being treated the same way, as 'criminals. '. An legal immigrant gets abused under our current immigration laws as if he is a bad guy and our anti-immigration laws look at the illegals as if they are criminals, while they are not, since the grand majority of them do not violate any life nor property of a US citizen. If anything, illegals are less prone to crime because they have more to lose than citizens. And please spare me the false use of them 'trespassing'. Trying to criminalize what is not truly a crime, since there is no true trespassing (the country is not owned by you), does not work with me.

I thought that someone who broke the laws of a nation was a criminal. And if they are breaking immigration law to enter the nation, well that makes their first action in relation to the United States, a criminal one.

I see the code of laws, to be fundamental to civilization and a free society. For there is only 2 choices, either rule by whim, or rule by law.

Any society that is ruled by whim instead of ruled by law, is only 1 step above collapsing into total dictatorship for there is nothing to check the leaders power.

With the rule of law, you got the constitution as a check on government officials actions, and you know in advance which actions will bring the force of government down on your head, and which actions you have full freedom without worrying about government officials.

One thing that offends me heavily, is governments trying to criminalise everything. For if everything is a crime, the distinction between a lawful action, and an unlawful action is obliviated, and it is effectively rule by whim.

But on the other hand, people who believe that they should be able to disregard any law they choose, well they also tend to upset me, because you don't move more towards a society ruled by law, by breaking laws.

In semi-free nations such as the US, or Australia, you got a process for getting rid of bad laws, which is advocating the right ideas, and then getting them voted in. Bad ideas can be semi-permanently blocked off, by amending the constitution to close loopholes that have been utilised in the past.

But people who believe that they can violate any law they wish, as they see fit, well I got to ask how much respect do they have for the other laws if they already broke this one? Will they start up illegal drug growing and drug smuggling cartels too? (note that in a free society, drugs won't be banned either)

What other laws will they break?

My solution to all this is as follows.

1. Unlimited immigration for people who are not criminals, or do not have contagious diseases.

2. Heavy crackdowns on anyone who illegally immigrates.

3. Immigrants do not gain citizenship simply by living in a country for a period of time. (so they don't become automatic socialist voters)

4. Immigrants who commit crime, are deported and permanently barred from reentry for their entire lives.

Point 3 will seperate the issue of immigration, from the issue of citizenship. Because they are currently linked(by the ability to gain citizenship by living there legally for a set point in time), I see it as confusing the issue of immigration. It is better to separate immigration from citizenship, and then have a separate debate on what citizenship means and how it is obtained.

Anyway, my solution offers these things.

People seeking a better life for themselves, can legally immigrate and live the life of a free person.

Any mixed premises ideas that they bring with them, will not be imported into the American politics.

If they do not wish to live under American law, once caught, and appropriate reparations are made, they will no longer be a problem of any American ever again due to their deportation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 'illegal' in 'illegal immigrants' is not parenthetical. No one's rights are being sacrificed when thieves, con-artists, murders, etc. etc. are in jail rather running loose on the streets either, and laws governing the procedures for immigrating and obtaining citizenship are obviously not "sacrificing the immigrants' right to their life".

Depicting all illegal immigrants in such a bad way is untrue propaganda talk, which attempts to depict ALL illegal immigrants as murderers, rapists thieves etc., while these are truly largely innocent people wanting to work and live here to create a better life for themselves at no one's expense but their own labor.

No one has depicted all of them in the same way. The radical activists described by Michell Malkin are organizers for unrestricted immigration, in collaboration with Obama and other progressives, for political purposes that are not good and should not be tolerated. People should be aware of what is being done and for what purpose. This is a serious threat from radical leftists that is not to be ignored just because other immigrants are not part of it.

It is also not true that there are only a few such activists and all the rest are only tying to create a better life for themselves at no one else's expense. That is a false alternative. You continue to ignore the fact that we are flooded with illegal aliens looking for a "better life" on welfare benefits, not just their "own labor".

But such distinctions have nothing to do with the fact that the 'illegal' in 'illegal immigrant' is not parenthetical. Violations of the law are violations of the law. You can't have a system of laws in which violations are selectively ignored without regard for the law, in this case proper procedures of immigration. Such a view of the law is incoherent.

The moment someone actively becomes part of a 'group' and expresses support for that group, he becomes a sanctioner of the policies and activities of that group and can be held accountable. Obviously I am not referring to a 'one time demonstrator' as that was not the context I gave. I was talking about 'actively supporting the activities of the Tea Parties'.

In the health care debate on the other hand I saw an Objectivist leader of ARI staying out of the actual political activities of political parties, so not sanctioning, but always offering her services to the political group(s) on a case by case basis 'from the outside'. I personally find that controlled independent approach a better way to keep one's values protected, insteda of becoming an active member of a (tea) party.

One does not become a 'member' of a tea party. The tea parties are protests against statism in government, not 'political parties' one joins.

Untrue. The tea parties are now virtually all 'organized political groups with political leaders, political policies, political web sites, political activities etc.

It is true. That someone has to organize the rallies does not mean that people attending have joined an organization. They are not "members" and tea parties are not political parties.

The people attending have different levels of understanding and different interests.

No one disputes hat people have different interests. All political parties have such people. I am concerned about specific political interests and political activities performed by part of these people under the umbrella of the tea parties they joined. The facts of this have not been disproved above.

You have just dropped the context of your own statement. Becoming active at a tea party rally in order to spread better ideas is not joining a political party. Such activism does not make anyone a "sanctioner" of alleged "policies and activities" of everyone else there. Nor in the case of your objection to opposing illegal activities does it matter.

You continue to equivocate between legal and illegal immigration. This has been explained to you previously and you continue to ignore it.

Not sure where you get that I am stating that legal and illegal immigration are entirely equal,...

You continue to ignore the distinction yourself, throughout this thread right to the end of your most recent post. You objected in your opening post to opposition to illegal immigration and continue to downplay and ignore the illegality. You attack opponents of illegal immigration as if they oppose all immigration. When Betsy said she saw no signs opposing immigration, you continued to equivocate, stating that "one cannot ignore the evidence of 'anti-illegals activity substance' I gave, based on incidental differences." Legal versus illegal is not parenthetical is not an "incidental difference".

... but in the USA illegal and legal immigrants are indeed being treated the same way, as 'criminals. '.

There you go again. That is not true.

An legal immigrant gets abused under our current immigration laws as if he is a bad guy and our anti-immigration laws look at the illegals as if they are criminals, while they are not, since the grand majority of them do not violate any life nor property of a US citizen. If anything, illegals are less prone to crime because they have more to lose than citizens.

Opposition to illegal immigration is not support of abuse of legal immigrants. Requiring a process of obtaining citizenship no more presumes the applicant is a criminal than when you apply for a driver's license.

The claim that illegals in the country are "less prone" to committing other crimes is contrary to the fact of what is happening every day.

And please spare me the false use of them 'trespassing'. Trying to criminalize what is not truly a crime, since there is no true trespassing (the country is not owned by you), does not work with me.

Spare us the condescending invocation of an irrelevant strawman. That statement only confirms again that you oppose laws governing the process of immigration and obtaining citizenship, which have nothing to do with "trespass", and that you still equate opposition to illegal immigration with opposition to immigration as such. Your premise is false. You continue to invoke it, oblivious to repeated rejection of false premises and equivocations, obsessively repeating yourself as if no discussion were required and readers are supposed to agree with arguments appealing to a premise that is not accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have split off some posts that deal with judging motivation onto a separate thread titled "Inferring motivation from someone's statements" (link).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laws are not 'statist' for being laws. "We" are not fighting statism and collectivism with "more statism and collectivism".

We can be glad that your wife was able to legally immigrate to Sweden but this has nothing to do with the facts of what is happening due to the flood of illegals into the US, which fact has been pointed out to you previously and which you do not address. Nor is your marriage to a legal immigrant a defense of your own social democracy advocacy that anyone should be able to come here and vote to change the government to more collectivism and statism. Nor does it address the rejection of that and the rationalistic claims that opposition to this is somehow to be construed as a "collectivist premise".

I dispute your premise that I am being rationalistic when I claim that some of the posts here against free immigration were on a *collectivist premise*. At least one of the posts, which I was responding to, talked of illegal immigrants "invading" the USA. I take the concept "invasion" to mean a deliberate, organized entry of hostile aliens into the country, led by a foreign government. Now the person who wrote that post (I do not remember right now if it was you, ewv) was speaking figuratively, of course. But he must have intended the word "invasion" to *connote* the idea of an organized entry of hostile aliens into the country. And I take that as showing that the author of the post *was* on a collectivist premise.

I wonder if not people here on the forum sometimes use the term "rationalistic" as a sweeping accusation to disarm their opponents? I really do not understand why I am so often accused of being rationalistic here. Yes, I know, it is conceivable that I am rationalistic, and that I am so "deep" into rationalism that I am blind to my own rationalism, that I am delusional even. But I don´t see it.

The misrepresentations and fallacies in the above post are addressed in the thread split off under the title "Inferring motivation from someone's statements" leading with Carlos' response and in detail here and here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has occurred to me that I have been investing too much time in polemics in this debate thread. It would be more fruitful to present my own version of the *positive* case for free immigration (but to give credit where credit is due – I owe the basic idea in this post to Harry Binswanger, whose HB List I subscribe to).

Remember the principle that *all* property, in a proper society, is privately owned. And each private owner has the *exclusive* right to decide how to use his property (as long as he does not use it to violate the rights of another, he does not have a right to use his car to run somebody else over, for example).

So, if I own an apartment or a house in Sweden, and I decide that I want to marry a woman from Vietnam, Thi, and let her live in my home, the Swedish government would be violating *my* rights, as well as the rights of Thi, if it forcibly prevented her from coming to Sweden and moving in with me. And, likewise, if I owned a business of my own, and I decided that I wanted to let Thi come to Sweden and be employed by me, the government would be violating *my* rights, as well as Thi´s rights if it prevented her from coming to Sweden and working for me, or if it permitted a labor union to forcibly prevent me from hiring Thi (the labor unions here in Sweden are *very* anti-immigration, they are sometimes even clearly racist, because they are afraid of “wage dumping”).

Now, the opposition to immigration is, I think, almost invariably due to a collectivist premise. Namely this – “the Americans own America” or “the Swedes own Sweden” or “the Russians own Russia” and so forth.

When people say that a government has a right to restrict immigration, they are saying – “the people of this nation have a right to decide (collectively, by vote, in a democracy or a republic) who gets to live on the territory of this country.” Now, the right to one´s property is the right to decide how that property is to be used. So the idea that the citizens of one country have a right to decide, together, who gets to live in that country means that the citizens of that country *own*, together, the entire geographical territory of that country. Because, they are assuming that they have the right to decide the use of that country´s territory. And this is, of course, sheer socialism!

That is why I say the restriction of immigration *always* rests on a collectivist premise. I am not implying that the opponents of free immigration are on a *racist* premise. No, they are on a *socialist* premise! It is ironic that so many Americans today, especially on the political right, are advocating what is really, although they do not themselves realize it, a socialist policy (the idea of *collective property*, for example that the “Americans own America”, is obviously a socialist idea).

Here in Sweden there are two types of opponents of free immigration – those on the political right and those on the political left. Those on the right advocate restrictions on immigration in order to “protect” the Swedish culture against “alien” (especially non-European) cultures. So they lean towards ethnic collectivism. They are tribalists. But their means of implementing their ethnic collectivism is socialistic, since they assume that “the Swedes own Sweden”.

The enemies of free immigration on the left, and there are *many* of them, are motivated mostly by a desire to “protect” the Swedish workers against competition for jobs and against “wage dumping”. The former social democrat prime minister Goeran Persson, is nowadays notorious here in Sweden for having minted the slogan “social tourism”, which he accused immigrants from Eastern Europe of engaging in. He meant that the immigrants parasitized on the Swedish welfare state, because they came here, allegedly, in order to get benefits from the Swedish government, which they had not themselves financed. The labor unions are militantly opposed to free immigration. They fight it tooth and nail. And sometimes clear signs of racism become visible. There was a conflict here in Sweden about five years ago, in which Latvian construction workers were hired by a Swedish company, to construct a school here in the Stockholm area. The Swedish construction union blockaded the construction site, making it impossible for the Latvian workers to enter their workplace. And the picketers on at least one occasion began chanting “Latvians go home!” at the poor Latvians. I despise the Swedish labor unions.

As to the idea that unrestricted immigration might impoverish the Swedish workers, I refuted that fallacious idea in this essay - http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=11142 .

I also think that the idea that a democratic or a republican government has a right to restrict immigration (well, strictly speaking, a *genuinely* republican government wouldn´t ever do such a thing) is also collectivistic on the grounds that the idea that laws are conventions brought about by vote, is also a collectivist idea, since democracy is a form of collectivism. It is an expression of collective subjectivism.

I think that the only way an Objectivist who is against free immigration *might* be able to defend himself against the charge that he is guilty of collectivism, would be to say – “I am not against free immigration *on principle*. But this is an emergency! The majority of the immigrants are voting for the leftists!” Well, such an Objectivist is not guilty of collectivism, I suppose. But how would he defend himself against the charge that he is guilty of *pragmatism*? Should we not act on principle? Even when doing so does not seem to be expedient?

Sure, it is not convenient if a majority of the immigrants vote in a way which we Objectivists do not like. But does that give us the right to violate the immigrants´ rights? Even for the purpose of defending *our* rights? (Actually, I think that trying to defend our own rights by fighting *against* the proper policy, i.e. against free immigration, is a dead end. I think that it would be more fruitful to fight *for* the proper policy, i.e. for the abolition of the welfare state.)

I have heard one argument against free immigration which is quite seductive. It goes like this – “The government is instituted to protect individual rights. But only it´s *own* citizens´ rights. The country´s *own* citizens have a right to live wherever they want in that country, and their own government must protect that right. But a person who happens to be born in another country is not entitled to the protection of his rights by the first country´s government. So Henrik Unné has a right to work and live wherever he wants in Sweden, and the Swedish government must protect that right. But Thi Cuc Tran, who happened to be born in Vietnam, did not help to finance the Swedish government while she lived in Vietnam. She did not delegate *her* right of self-defense to the Swedish government. So the Swedish government has no obligation to protect *her* right to work and live wherever she wants, even in Sweden. So if Thi comes to Sweden, and the Swedish government feels like sending her back, it may do so.”

That is a seductive argument isn´t it? It seems logical. But I can easily do a reductio ad absurdam on it. What if I start from the same premise as the argument above, and reason like this – “Thi Cuc Tran has not delegated her right of self defense to the *Swedish* government. So the Swedish government has no obligation to protect *her* rights. So, say that Thi visits Sweden as a tourist. And Henrik Unné murders her in order to steal her wallet. Now the Swedish police are aware that Henrik is Thi´s murderer. But they reason that – `Thi, the murder victim is not a Swede. She has not delegated her right of self defense to *us*. So we have no obligation to protect her rights. So we will let Henrik Unné go scot free!´ You see what absurd logical consequences the above argument against free immigration logically leads to?

Of course a reductio ad absurdam argument does not tell us what the *right* principle is. But the right principle is this – the Swedish government is obligated to protect the individual rights of every individual, foreigner or not, who is on the Swedish territory at any given time. That is why it is the Swedish government, and not the Vietnamese government, which is obligated to prosecute me if I murder a Vietnamese on Swedish territory, when she is visiting Sweden. And by the same reasoning, the Swedish government has an obligation to protect the right of *any* individual to work and live in Sweden, as soon as she is doing so, even if she originally comes from another country. As soon as Thi is living in Sweden, then the Swedish government is now obligated to protect her right to continue to do so. It has no right whatsoever to “send her back” (unless, possibly, she commits a crime).Of course, Thi is also obligated to help finance the Swedish government, as soon as she begins living in Sweden, so that she does not free-ride (I am reasoning here in the context of a society in which the government is still being financed by taxes, but this is an inconsequential detail, the enactment of voluntary financing of government certainly would not invalidate the principle of the right to free immigration).

The principle that the Swedish government is not obligated to protect the rights of foreigners, since they have not delegated their right of self defense to the *Swedish* government, means that the Swedish government does not have any duty to send its police or army to foreign countries, in order to protect those countries´ citizens´ rights *over there*, on other countries´ territory. But anyone who is on Swedish territory is entitled to the Swedish government´s protection while on that territory.

Now, someone might argue – “Well, that means that it is OK for the Swedish government to stop Thi at the border, and prevent her from entering Sweden. Then she is not yet on Swedish territory when the Swedish government uses force on her, and she is not yet entitled to the Swedish government´s protection – so what is the problem? Well, Thi is on *some* country´s territory in some country´s jurisdiction (I think that all of the seas should be *some* country´s jurisdiction) at every instant in time. So if the Swedish government forcibly intervenes against Thi, when she is not yet on Swedish territory, then it is using forceagainst her on another country´s territory, and that is, strictly speaking, an act of war. At least, the Swedish government´s police have no right to operate on another country´s territory (unless it is in hot pursuit of a criminal or fighting a war, and Thi cannot be construed as being a criminal before she has even stepped onto Swedish territory, nor is there in this context a war going on). So the Swedish government cannot, in reason, prevent Thi from entering Swedish territory. And anyway, in what way is Thi violating any Swede´s individual rights, if she merely crosses the border? After all, tourists are not criminals (I have been reasoning here in the present context, in which not all property is private. In a proper society, all property would be private, and then Thi would need the permission of *some* Swedish property owner, to enter onto *his* specific property, but as soon as she had gotten some Swede´s consent to enter onto his property, the Swedish government would have nada right to stop her).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.