Mercury

Canadian Publisher Persecuted for Cartoons

137 posts in this topic

There are various categories of pre-Green Card immigrant, but I will limit myself to the category you mention above: the H-1B holder. What is his life like? Is it productive? Can he make the same choices a Green Card holder or US citizen can over the course of 5, 10 years? You say that he can earn degrees, have children and "be productive." The questions raised by this line of thought are: productive in what field? Can he afford to try for a promotion if his visa is bound to a certain earning level or job type? Can he change jobs? Can he change fields from engineering to journalism or philosophy? Can he afford to irritate his supervisor? How many kids can he have? Does he have these kids by choice or does he beget them as potential "anchor babies"? Can he speak freely about US culture, like Ayn Rand did? What if the economy stumbles, as it did after 9/11? What are the laws governing his visa status and how does he avoid breaking them? I could go on, but there are probably others on THE FORUM who can share their experiences in this context.

Comparing that to the PNP (Provincial Nominee Program) for would-be/pre-Canadian PRs this looks pretty limiting. But remember that the restrictions on an employment Temporary Resident Permit in Canada (if you can get one) are exactly as you have stated for the H-1B. I guess this thread might tangent off into the definition of productive as it has in other threads, but productivity (when defined from an earnings standpoint) is not simply a matter of being able to do what one wishes to "earn one's keep". It's also about being able to keep what one earns - the per capita net income of an American worker (legal worker) compared to the Canadian worker speaks volumes. Our economy may be stumbling, but note that our current Defense budget is something like 4% of our GDP, and that it has been decreasing steadily over the decades as American workers become more and more productive. That sort of DoD-GDP ratio cannot be said of Canadians' productivity.

Thank you for your comments. I agree that it is important to consider the big blow to income that comes from living in near-socialism.

However, your view of productivity - as I've emphasized above - is what I take issue with. The ability to do what one loves is not trivial, so perhaps I should have stressed the importance of personal values here. Living in an America where one earns $120,000/yr but may never get the chance to do X because of visa limitations may not be preferable to living in a Canada where one earns $30,000/yr in a career one loves. And if it turns out to be a nightmare, one is in a better position to relocate to the US or Australia or the UK or South Africa or Japan, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I got that part of her argument; and that is a valid point. However, the standard is not the survival of the Canadian near-socialist state, but the life of the individual doomed to the alternative: outright socialism, communism, or tribalism in his native country.

When the majority of people, productive and not, leave one country to go to another in a legal manner, their concerns include availability of healthcare, "good" air quality, opportunity to advance in a chosen field of work, etc. Many immigrants speak fondly of various aspects of their homeland, and actually prefer it. They would return if it was not for the "infrastructure" that Canada has. Most people merely seek a lesser form of communism, as long as it is practical for them. The standard of comparison you state is 1) not the one most legal migrants are interested in, 2) not the standard Canada provides.

No. In theoretical terms, it is the standard -- life is the standard of value. When we speak of capitalism (in the modern world), we mean all these concrete conditions you have mentioned, but use the concept to denote the essential principles that bring them about. Good life is not *in* the concept 'capitalism' - good life is the concretes. Capitalism, the concept, is in the minds of the men who grasp it. In the same way, these migrants may not know what the essential principles of communism/socialism/tribalism are, but they know that they are no longer at the mercy of armed robbers, bad roads, random riots, traffic snarls, and whimsical government officials.

This point is another discussion, however, so I am ready to let this go in the meantime.

It should be another thread, yes, but I disagree - but I should say briefly that I am not saying the mental greyness makes most immigrants "evil".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are the biggest TV and radio talk-show hosts in Canada (famous on the scale of Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and their ilk of ingrates) denigrating immigrants all day and every day? If so, let me know.

Thanks.

I don't know about the other two, but when have Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh denigrated immigrants? I'm sure they complain a lot about illegal immigrants, but how could you chastise them for that?

Also, why do you consider Rush or Bill to be among "ilk of ingrates"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are the biggest TV and radio talk-show hosts in Canada (famous on the scale of Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and their ilk of ingrates) denigrating immigrants all day and every day? If so, let me know.

Thanks.

I don't know about the other two, but when have Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh denigrated immigrants? I'm sure they complain a lot about illegal immigrants, but how could you chastise them for that?

Also, why do you consider Rush or Bill to be among "ilk of ingrates"?

If you'd like to discuss this, open another thread. But, before you do that, kindly search THE FORUM for all the immigration threads, reading them thoroughly, keeping the Objectivist view of moral principles and individual rights firmly in mind.

Also, next time you watch Bill O'Reilly - who claims to be pro-"amnesty" - or one of his guest hosts, each time he/she says "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants," replace the terms used with "American citizen." What does it sound like to you? Also, reflect deeply on what it would mean if you were a morally upright person who, for whatever reason, had violated a nonobjective law but were spoken about as if you were murderer. After you have done these, let me know.

If you have enough time, read of all Ayn Rand's writing on immigration and individual rights, noting also her comments in Ayn Rand Answers. By this, I don't mean to be dismissive - I will discuss the matter if you so desire. I just don't wish to repeat myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you'd like to discuss this, open another thread. But, before you do that, kindly search THE FORUM for all the immigration threads, reading them thoroughly, keeping the Objectivist view of moral principles and individual rights firmly in mind.
I don't want a discussion, I just want evidence for your claim that Rush and Bill are anti-immigrants.
Also, next time you watch Bill O'Reilly - who claims to be pro-"amnesty" - or one of his guest hosts, each time he/she says "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants," replace the terms used with "American citizen." What does it sound like to you? Also, reflect deeply on what it would mean if you were a morally upright person who, for whatever reason, had violated a nonobjective law but were spoken about as if you were murderer. After you have done these, let me know.
But illegal immigrants aren't American citizens. When Al Gore says we should protect trees, can I replace "trees" with "Objectivists" then say Gore is a great guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As someone who has lived just about everywhere, I'm of the opinion that even with all the restrictions I experience in the U.S. (including coming under fire thanks to the Patriot Act) I'd rather suffer the indignities of a decade in America on the H1-B status than spend a lifetime paying enormous debts to a Canadian public at a far greater ratio than I do in America in any given timeframe or immigration status.

This is an individual judgment, highly contextual, and there are many factors involved.

Today, the prospect of H1-B status in US does not seem as bad to me as it did when at any given moment I could have been required to go back to Poland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side-note, while plowing or doing long distance driving I have listened to a decent amount of conservative talk shows on the radio (Hannity, Rush, etc.) and have never once heard an anti-immigrant sentiment expressed. I have however heard an anti-illegal immigrant sentiment that was very strong, but I do not equate the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In philosophy, there are no such things as "yes or no answers," which is what you appear to be asking for.

But, if you insist:

If you'd like to discuss this, open another thread. But, before you do that, kindly search THE FORUM for all the immigration threads, reading them thoroughly, keeping the Objectivist view of moral principles and individual rights firmly in mind.
I don't want a discussion, I just want evidence for your claim that Rush and Bill are anti-immigrants.

Watch The O'Reilly Factor and listen to Rush Limbaugh's show.

Also, next time you watch Bill O'Reilly - who claims to be pro-"amnesty" - or one of his guest hosts, each time he/she says "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants," replace the terms used with "American citizen." What does it sound like to you? Also, reflect deeply on what it would mean if you were a morally upright person who, for whatever reason, had violated a nonobjective law but were spoken about as if you were murderer. After you have done these, let me know.
But illegal immigrants aren't American citizens. When Al Gore says we should protect trees, can I replace "trees" with "Objectivists" then say Gore is a great guy?

The terms "American citizens" and "illegal immigrant" are in the same CCD, i.e., the same context. Your analogy fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a side-note, while plowing or doing long distance driving I have listened to a decent amount of conservative talk shows on the radio (Hannity, Rush, etc.) and have never once heard an anti-immigrant sentiment expressed. I have however heard an anti-illegal immigrant sentiment that was very strong, but I do not equate the two.

The problem is the term "illegal immigrant" is meaningless when one considers the non-objective nature of the laws barring legal entry in the United States. Under open immigration (and I agree completely with Dr. Binswanger on this matter), the whole notion of illegal immigration would exist only to cover those people who are actual criminals or carriers of infectious disease and managed to get into the country.

In short, I DO consider anti-illegal immigrant sentiment to be the same thing as anti-immigrant sentiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soharwardy, the man that filed the complaint against Ezra Levant, is being accused of harassing women:

Well, in the case of Soharwardy, it appears that he himself is the subject of a human rights complaint -- for discrimination against women. There's a shocker. It was filed with the Edmonton and Ottawa offices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Some women in his mosque allege that:

We were discriminated as women and were treated poorly, differently, negatively and adversely by the Directors and Officers of Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Centre, Islam Supreme Council of Canada (ISCC), Muslim Against Terrorism (MAT), Al-Madinah Dar-Ul-Aloom Ltd and Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Assembly. In this meeting we were treated diferently from men in the following manner:

· Abusive language uttered towards us;

· Not permitted to ask any questions;

· Danied participation as equal members of the Muslim community;

· Physically and verbally threatened; made to sit in the back of the hall;

· Accused of disrupting and subotaging the proceedings;

· Forced to vacate the pemises;

Followed-up by obscene and threatening phone calls and letters in the mail.

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is the term "illegal immigrant" is meaningless when one considers the non-objective nature of the laws barring legal entry in the United States. Under open immigration (and I agree completely with Dr. Binswanger on this matter), the whole notion of illegal immigration would exist only to cover those people who are actual criminals or carriers of infectious disease and managed to get into the country.

In short, I DO consider anti-illegal immigrant sentiment to be the same thing as anti-immigrant sentiment.

Ok, but you can do this because you study Objectivism and apply it to law and politics so that you fully understand that the current immigration laws are non-objective, and what it would mean exactly to support non-objective laws.

Without Objectivism a person probably wouldn't understand why the current immigration laws are so bad on principle, and therefore he would think it crazy to equate an anti-illegal immigrant sentiment to an anti-immigrant one. This is why I think it is unfair to basically say that Rush or Bill are racist or anti-immigrant.

To put it another way, suppose a study came out that claimed whites were lower in intelligence than all the other races, and though the study sounded very reasonable and scientific, the arguments were ultimately based in racist premises. If a person supported the study, but didn't understand it's connection to racist premises, it wouldn't be fair to call them a racist would it?

To me this is rationalism, that simply believing X grants you the qualities of X, regardless of the context (your behavior, character, virtues, etc...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is the term "illegal immigrant" is meaningless when one considers the non-objective nature of the laws barring legal entry in the United States. Under open immigration (and I agree completely with Dr. Binswanger on this matter), the whole notion of illegal immigration would exist only to cover those people who are actual criminals or carriers of infectious disease and managed to get into the country.

In short, I DO consider anti-illegal immigrant sentiment to be the same thing as anti-immigrant sentiment.

Ok, but you can do this because you study Objectivism and apply it to law and politics so that you fully understand that the current immigration laws are non-objective, and what it would mean exactly to support non-objective laws.

Without Objectivism a person probably wouldn't understand why the current immigration laws are so bad on principle, and therefore he would think it crazy to equate an anti-illegal immigrant sentiment to an anti-immigrant one. This is why I think it is unfair to basically say that Rush or Bill are racist or anti-immigrant.

To put it another way, suppose a study came out that claimed whites were lower in intelligence than all the other races, and though the study sounded very reasonable and scientific, the arguments were ultimately based in racist premises. If a person supported the study, but didn't understand it's connection to racist premises, it wouldn't be fair to call them a racist would it?

To me this is rationalism, that simply believing X grants you the qualities of X, regardless of the context (your behavior, character, virtues, etc...).

I strongly disagree with this view. The method is wrong, and the conclusions false. But, as I said, this matter should be discussed on a separate thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a side-note, while plowing or doing long distance driving I have listened to a decent amount of conservative talk shows on the radio (Hannity, Rush, etc.) and have never once heard an anti-immigrant sentiment expressed. I have however heard an anti-illegal immigrant sentiment that was very strong, but I do not equate the two.

The problem is the term "illegal immigrant" is meaningless when one considers the non-objective nature of the laws barring legal entry in the United States. Under open immigration (and I agree completely with Dr. Binswanger on this matter), the whole notion of illegal immigration would exist only to cover those people who are actual criminals or carriers of infectious disease and managed to get into the country.

In short, I DO consider anti-illegal immigrant sentiment to be the same thing as anti-immigrant sentiment.

It is virtually impossible for me to get into the United States so in the past, I have been tempted by illegal immigration to there. But when carefully thinking about it, I see it as completely wrong, and I see 2 separate questions that need to be answered.

1. Should immigration be unlimited except for criminals and infectious diseases? Yes.

2. Should people violate the rule of law? No.

The rule of law is a fundamental part of western civilisation, it allows people to know beforehand what is, or isn't a crime, so they can know their sphere of free action that they can choose to do without the consequences of the state retaliating.

It allows you to plan your life, without worrying about an endless popularity contest with everyone else, if a democracy, or with the dictator, if the nation is ruled by some monarch.

To violate the rule of law by illegally immigrating would show contempt for the very foundation of US civilisation, the part that is rights respecting.

There are proper ways to deal with immoral laws, and those should be followed rather than undermining the rule of law.

My view therefore is, I welcome legal immigrants and strive to make it possible for all men of good character to immigrate, but illegal immigrants disgust me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. Should people violate the rule of law? No.

If the law in question is immoral and one can get away with it, one should "violate" that particular "law."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. Should people violate the rule of law? No.

If the law in question is immoral and one can get away with it, one should "violate" that particular "law."

The product of that idea is anarchy. If everyone followed only those laws they judged moral, assuming they won't get caught, then there is no way to guarantee individual liberty when those liberties are judged immoral by some. I'm not saying, of course, that morals can be whatever anybody wants them to be. I'm saying they're objective, rationally established and not everyone is bound by rationality. Given the abundance of religious, environmentalist, and socialist people in our country I think it's clear how dangerous it is to be arbitrarily subjected to what others judge moral.

The rule of law is so vital to a properly functioning government precisely because it protects men from the morality of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. Should people violate the rule of law? No.

If the law in question is immoral and one can get away with it, one should "violate" that particular "law."

You know -- Socrates dealt with this a long time ago, paying with his life, and he addressed the issue in quite a different matter. He wouldn't even try to escape, when arrested under an immoral law, or try to circumvent it in any way. The reason is that doing anything other than what he did would be anarchy. The proper method of dealing with these laws is to to repeal, change them, engage with the political system of the country, not violate and make it a habit of violating any laws one finds a disagreement with. Socrates disagreed with the premise of the law under which he was arrested, but he revered the rule of law which the enforcement of it enshrined. Freely dismissing laws disagreeable laws would be in some way to advocate anarchy.

I don't see one thing about what jasonlockwood and Mercury are saying: if there's an equation between the anti-illegal immigrant and the anti-immigrant view, what does that say about someone who's pro-legal immigration? Are they semi-not-pro-immigrant? It's a logical pretzel.

Clearly the semantic preference for legal immigrants and not illegal ones means that the person supports some immigrants and doesn't support others. It doesn't mean he supports no immigrants at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know -- Socrates dealt with this a long time ago, paying with his life, and he addressed the issue in quite a different matter. He wouldn't even try to escape, when arrested under an immoral law, or try to circumvent it in any way. The reason is that doing anything other than what he did would be anarchy.

I totally disagree with this view (see recent post in another thread.) I would also note that the father of logic and Objectivism, Aristotle, was similarly charged, but had enough regard for his own life to flee Athens, stating "I will not allow the Athenians to sin against philosophy twice."

Is it simply a coincidence that the teacher of Plato, the ultimate father of totalitarian dictatorship and philosophic mysticism, chose to permit the collective to extinguish his life rather than to tell them that they and their brain-dead laws could go to hell e.g. Aristotle's response? I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. Should people violate the rule of law? No.

If the law in question is immoral and one can get away with it, one should "violate" that particular "law."

The product of that idea is anarchy. If everyone followed only those laws they judged moral, assuming they won't get caught, then there is no way to guarantee individual liberty when those liberties are judged immoral by some. I'm not saying, of course, that morals can be whatever anybody wants them to be. I'm saying they're objective, rationally established and not everyone is bound by rationality. Given the abundance of religious, environmentalist, and socialist people in our country I think it's clear how dangerous it is to be arbitrarily subjected to what others judge moral.

The rule of law is so vital to a properly functioning government precisely because it protects men from the morality of others.

The implicit premise here is that there is no way of telling moral laws from immoral "laws." I disagree in the strongest possible terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socrates disagreed with the premise of the law under which he was arrested, but he revered the rule of law which the enforcement of it enshrined. Freely dismissing laws disagreeable laws would be in some way to advocate anarchy.

Then he was an idiot in this regard.

Since when is Majority Rule the only alternative to anarchy?

And how is fighting the violation of one's Rights advocating anarchy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socrates disagreed with the premise of the law under which he was arrested, but he revered the rule of law which the enforcement of it enshrined. Freely dismissing laws disagreeable laws would be in some way to advocate anarchy.

Then he was an idiot in this regard.

I'm taking that back. It's not like he could've known better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The method is wrong, and the conclusions false. But, as I said, this matter should be discussed on a separate thread.

Please don't indicate I am wrong in such an absolute and matter of fact tone without simultaneously providing evidence for why I am wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a side-note, while plowing or doing long distance driving I have listened to a decent amount of conservative talk shows on the radio (Hannity, Rush, etc.) and have never once heard an anti-immigrant sentiment expressed. I have however heard an anti-illegal immigrant sentiment that was very strong, but I do not equate the two.

The problem is the term "illegal immigrant" is meaningless when one considers the non-objective nature of the laws barring legal entry in the United States. Under open immigration (and I agree completely with Dr. Binswanger on this matter), the whole notion of illegal immigration would exist only to cover those people who are actual criminals or carriers of infectious disease and managed to get into the country.

In short, I DO consider anti-illegal immigrant sentiment to be the same thing as anti-immigrant sentiment.

It is virtually impossible for me to get into the United States so in the past, I have been tempted by illegal immigration to there. But when carefully thinking about it, I see it as completely wrong, and I see 2 separate questions that need to be answered.

1. Should immigration be unlimited except for criminals and infectious diseases? Yes.

2. Should people violate the rule of law? No.

The rule of law is a fundamental part of western civilisation, it allows people to know beforehand what is, or isn't a crime, so they can know their sphere of free action that they can choose to do without the consequences of the state retaliating.

It allows you to plan your life, without worrying about an endless popularity contest with everyone else, if a democracy, or with the dictator, if the nation is ruled by some monarch.

To violate the rule of law by illegally immigrating would show contempt for the very foundation of US civilisation, the part that is rights respecting.

There are proper ways to deal with immoral laws, and those should be followed rather than undermining the rule of law.

My view therefore is, I welcome legal immigrants and strive to make it possible for all men of good character to immigrate, but illegal immigrants disgust me.

Thank you, I really liked this post.

Just because a certain law may not be that great can't be used as a justification for going on a free-for-all of breaking that specific law; otherwise we could have complete chaos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see one thing about what jasonlockwood and Mercury are saying: if there's an equation between the anti-illegal immigrant and the anti-immigrant view, what does that say about someone who's pro-legal immigration? Are they semi-not-pro-immigrant? It's a logical pretzel.

My point was not to confuse. My point was that much of the anti illegal immigrant sentiment is really a mask for outright hatred of immigrants per se. I live in Arizona and I hear this all the time. Mexicans are the predominant recipients of this hatred, naturally, and for the simple reason that many who try to come to the United States to live and work have no other options open to them. Most haven't got advanced degrees or professional hi-tech careers. What they do have is a strong desire to live better lives by their own effort.

It is a constant inspiration to me to see Mexican laborers working hard at constuction and landscaping jobs. It reminds me that this country is about the constant pursuit of a better life. The fact that we have these irrational barriers to entry simply means their struggle is that much more difficult. It needn't be.

Stated another way, the problem with the term "illegal immigration" is it lumps all comers into one ugly package deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites