Immigration Law in Arizona

[kainscalia]

So own could legally break in and do whatever one wants. One could steal from it since it has no owners, vandalize it own demolish it... or lay claim to private claim since it has no owner by the reasoning you just set forth.

You seem to be obfuscating categories here on purpose.

1.- Claiming you have the right to impede an innocent (that is a non-criminal) immigrant from immigrating into the United States out of a claim of collective ownership. Unless the entire country is one man's private property, this cannot be done on principle. The reason by which a country may secure its borders is not collective ownership, but the protection of individual rights of those dwelling within its borders-- This is the only legitimate application. An innocent immigrant (many of which are currently here branded as illegal because of an unprincipled law) does not infringe upon anyone's rights by immigrating into the country. You have no right and no principled leg to stand on whatsoever to impede his or her immigration into your country. You may only do so if they are coming in with criminal or terrorist intent.

1a.- The welfare strawman(when used to attack immigration) is really something people here should be able to spot already, as well as why it doesn't work in this discussion. Welfare, by itself, already is a violation of the individual rights of the inhabitants of the country, regardless of what immigrants may do. The question of Welfare here has nothing to do with immigration, except that both the current system of immigration and the Welfare system are a violation of the rights of the individual, e punto.

2.- Government, when having a legitimate reason for existing, requires places of operation. Ideally, as Rand once put it, voluntary taxation would furnish the government with funding for the buildings it needs (imagine, the government having to stick to a budget! gasp!). Those buildings of operations must have a legitimate reason for existing. For as long as they exist and are in the use of the government, they are considered government equipment, required for the operation of its machine. They are not private property per se, in that they are not owned by one particular individual, but they are neither no man's possessions any more than a company car in a private company would be considered 'owned by nobody' because it's in the name of the company. Nevertheless, it still is not a 'collective' property-- if you are still skeptical of this, try 'borrowing' a Post Office vehicle next time you send a package.

2a.- Now the argument will be whether those buildings, territory, etc, that the government now owns and uses which are not legitimate in principle or by the constitution (such as the post office, for example), would be considered no-man's land and whether you could rob it, deface it, vandalize it or do what you will with it. My first reaction is to wonder why, when faced with such a situation your immediate example is either theft or vandalization as opposed to, say, appropriation and development, but that is neither here nor there. While it indeed is an illegitimate use of government power (since most of its funding was extracted by force through taxes) and the purpose may be illegitimate (such as the post office), you would have to fight its illegitimacy like a rational being- through law reform and demanding federal audits, not like a vulgar thug or a thief. Unless your instant reaction to this sort of thing is to react violently and physically- in which case it would first be best to seek psychological aid, then proceed as previously indicated.

[aequalsa]

"Illegal immigrants," simply by virtue of coming into this country illegally, have not violated anyone's rights. Their rights, and the rights of those who would welcome them here, are the one's whose rights have been violated due to their coming here illegally.

What they have done, though, is demonstrated a clear and utter disregard for the rule of law which gives me no reason to suspect that their disregard for the law stops at that point. A society in which the rule of law is not maintained is called a failed state and that's when the real "nice" stuff starts to happen.

There is no justification for breaking laws of any kind, in a rights respecting republic which hasn't become tyrannical, because that very breakdown of the rule of law is what leads to real tyranny. Advocating change and repeal of laws which are immoral is one thing, and I would certainly support you in that, but the large scale ramifications of your statements, turning law breakers into heroes will do nothing to preserve or expand rights, and if history is any guide, it will, in fact, serve to eliminate them wholesale.

[kainscalia]

Please look up the usage of the imperfect subjunctive in contra-factual conditional clauses as well as the difference between 'its' as a possessive and 'it's' as a contraction of 'it is'.

Edited April 27, 2010 by kainscalia

[Trebor]

What they have done, though, is demonstrated a clear and utter disregard for the rule of law which gives me no reason to suspect that their disregard for the law stops at that point. A society in which the rule of law is not maintained is called a failed state and that's when the real "nice" stuff starts to happen.

There is no justification for breaking laws of any kind, in a rights respecting republic which hasn't become tyrannical, because that very breakdown of the rule of law is what leads to real tyranny. Advocating change and repeal of laws which are immoral is one thing, and I would certainly support you in that, but the large scale ramifications of your statements, turning law breakers into heroes will do nothing to preserve or expand rights, and if history is any guide, it will, in fact, serve to eliminate them wholesale.

I, as a citizen, can try to influence this government via advocating the repeal of rights-violating laws; I still have some freedoms. Illegal immigrants, with respect to trying to change the laws that violate their rights are in the same position as slaves. They have no rights as citizens, and they certainly can't expect our government to protect their rights. I have no problem with a slave violating the law (escaping his master's bondage) in the name of his own right to life, nor do I have any problem with illegal immigrants violating immigration laws in the name of their rights. What else are they going to do? Wait until you and others who share your view set them free?

Yes, as one example, I do think that young Elian Gonzales's mother was a heroic woman.

[kainscalia]

How about people who evade taxes?

So you're implying that taxes are moral and that you have a duty to pay them? Are you sure you're on the right board?

Or go through red lights late at night when no other cars are present?

Do you really need someone to hold your hand and point this one out to you, or are you being cute?

Or people who sell high quality drugs to addicts?

Yup you do need someone to hold your hand. Guess what? They're free to sell them whatever they wish. They're adults, they have all the right in the world to want to destroy themselves and take the necessary steps to do so, whether it be moral or not-- it's that little problem of individual rights.

or to children?

If you can't tell the difference between a consenting adult and an undeveloped child and the philosophical nature of their positions, then you really are in the wrong part of the internet.

Are prostitutes heroic?

If a prostitute is plying her trade in direct awareness and protest that any laws that try to regulate what you do with your body (abortion, prostitution, sodomy laws) are both immoral and illegitimate? Then, sucks to be you aequalsa, yes, they would be inasmuch as their stance is a protest of unfair laws. Prostitution is a hedonistic pleasure and not moral, but whether or not an individual is going to resort to a prostitute or not is not for the state or the government to determine, but that individual and that prostitute alone. One problem with that whole 'freedom' thing is that people are going to be doing things you may not like, but which is not illegal for them to do so. You're going to have to deal with it.

Really, are you having a problem abstracting the principles at play here, and that is why you have to constantly ask about each new concrete scenario that comes into your mind? If that is the problem, then I think you need to read The Anti-Conceptual Mentality.

[Maximus]

Please look up the usage of the imperfect subjunctive in contra-factual conditional clauses as well as the difference between 'its' as a possessive and 'it's' as a contraction of 'it is'.

Just admit you meant "level."

[aequalsa]

I, as a citizen, can try to influence this government via advocating the repeal of rights-violating laws; I still have some freedoms. Illegal immigrants, with respect to trying to change the laws that violate their rights are in the same position as slaves. They have no rights as citizens, and they certainly can't expect our government to protect their rights. I have no problem with a slave violating the law (escaping his master's bondage) in the name of his own right to life, nor do I have any problem with illegal immigrants violating immigration laws in the name of their rights. What else are they going to do? Wait until you and others who share your view set them free?

Yes, as one example, I do think that young Elian Gonzales's mother was a heroic woman.

Illegal immigrants are decidedly not in the same position as slaves unless you consider all taxpayers to be slaves also. They can plead their case as well as anyone minus having a vote, for whatever that's worth. At any rate, I'd recommend thinking more about the concept of the rule of law and what a lack of one means in practical terms.

[aequalsa]

Yup you do need someone to hold your hand.

When you learn to be more polite or less condescending I'll consider engaging you in conversation.

[Maximus]

I, as a citizen, can try to influence this government via advocating the repeal of rights-violating laws; I still have some freedoms. Illegal immigrants, with respect to trying to change the laws that violate their rights are in the same position as slaves. They have no rights as citizens, and they certainly can't expect our government to protect their rights. I have no problem with a slave violating the law (escaping his master's bondage) in the name of his own right to life, nor do I have any problem with illegal immigrants violating immigration laws in the name of their rights. What else are they going to do? Wait until you and others who share your view set them free?

Yes, as one example, I do think that young Elian Gonzales's mother was a heroic woman.

One thing no one is taking into account: Illegals are voting in our elections. The Democrats, on one hand, see them as a base to get re-elected in perpetuity; the Republicans, on the other, see them as a ready source of cheap (really cheap) labor. In either case, they are being used as pawns. These are two reasons reform has not happened, the political class want them here.

[Maximus]

When you learn to be more polite or less condescending I'll consider engaging you in conversation.

I've been expecting the race card to be pulled at any time by someone.

[kainscalia]

When you learn to be more polite or less condescending I'll consider engaging you in conversation.

Then perhaps you may elect to be less condescending by posting actual objections instead of strawman arguments and anti-conceptual diversions. You try to derail the point by arguing 'Well, then if X is X, then what about X?' Very much like that man a young objectivist was talking to who eventually agreed it was not moral or principled to regulate the steel Industry, but when then immediately asked "Well, what about the coal industry then?"

What other reaction do you expect when you come up with something that, quite honestly, you technically should be able to straighten out for yourself. The fact that you used the examples as an attempt to refute someone's point instead of asking for clarification shows that you were listing those examples in a very condescending attempt to undermine someone else's points- not by digging at the principle, but by trying to stay on the level of concretes.

Edited April 27, 2010 by kainscalia

[Trebor]

Illegal immigrants are decidedly not in the same position as slaves unless you consider all taxpayers to be slaves also. They can plead their case as well as anyone minus having a vote, for whatever that's worth. At any rate, I'd recommend thinking more about the concept of the rule of law and what a lack of one means in practical terms.

You've gotten it backwards. It is you who need to think more about the meaning of the rule of law. I suggest Frederic Bastiat's The Law

"The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all."

The rule of "laws" which violate individual rights is not the rule of law, but the rule of men on the premise that might makes right.

[kainscalia]

Just admit you meant "level."

The risks of posting on an iPod touch. Well worth the while, though.

[Trebor]

"The Complete Perversion of the Law

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense." Frederic Bastiat, The Law

How are we to demand justice for ourselves when we willingly deny justice to others?

[Trebor]

"What is Law?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right – from God – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two."

"If every person has the right to defend – even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right – its reason for existing, its lawfulness – is based upon individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force – for the same reason – cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups." Frederic Bastiat, The Law

So what then is "law" that is not law? What is the "rule of law" that is not the rule of law?

Edited April 27, 2010 by Trebor

[aequalsa]

You've gotten it backwards. It is you who need to think more about the meaning of the rule of law. I suggest Frederic Bastiat's The Law

"The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all."

The rule of "laws" which violate individual rights is not the rule of law, but the rule of men on the premise that might makes right.

I see. Above, is the basis of law, which is not what I meant to get across with the phrase, "rule of law." I think some of our misunderstanding here has to do with this particular concept which I am trying to get across, unsuccessfully. The idea is that there is nothing wrong with advocating for the repeal of some immoral law, but there is something very wrong with breaking it, unless you feel that the US has gotten to the point where no amount of reason can reverse its current trend.

Breaking a law, any law, because you feel it is improper or immoral, invites everyone to do the same with whatever particular laws they do not care for, regardless of how well they have reasoned it through. This break down in the application of law moves very quickly to situations like what exists in South Africa or on Arizona's southern border. This breakdown in general lawfulness is what made the french revolution so different from the American Revolution. A bunch of individuals all setting their own rules or choosing which to follow and which to avoid is philosophically indefensible in the Objectivist view because it is indistinguishable from anarchy.

The maintenance of civil order is accomplished by the general acceptance that the law may be imperfect, but we follow it until such time as we are able to change it. Without this general acceptance or without the enforcement of law, governments tend to collapse or become even more entrenched in autocracy to maintain some semblance of order.

In short, you cannot protect rights by destroying or fighting against the entity which is responsible for preserving them, except as a last resort.

Is that more clear?

[2046]

I've been expecting the race card to be pulled at any time by someone.

Okay, I'll pull it.

You do know that under the a proper system of immigration that we are advocating, there is no obligation for you to associate with those who you do not want to? To the extent that you have to presently is not a problem of free immigration and is not a justification for restricting free immigration.

If you do not want to live near too many Mexican, mestizo, Hispanics, Latinos, Spanish-speakers, blacks, gays, Asians, Indians, Hindus, Muslims, etc. that is perfectly legal and you and all those who see things your way may get together and agree to restrict property titles to allow no association with these groups, or enact contractual limitations with regard to dealing with these groups, or enact voluntary zoning that requires adjacent property owners to vote on whether to allow any given foreigner to buy or rent, or contracts or zoning which restricts which groups may be admitted (no sale or rent to Hispanics for example), or restrict the right of way to inlanders and exclude foreigners, etc. You have the right to do this, but you do not have the right to ask the government to restrict and forcibly exclude foriegners from willing individuals that are disposed to associating with them.

Under what we are advocating, there will be as much immigration or non-immigration, inclusivity or exclusivity, desegregation or segregation, non-discrimination or discrimination as individual owners or owners associations desire. Now what about me, as an immigrant, living my life and pursing my values, trading with those who desire it, what do I take from you, to which you are otherwise entitled by right to defend? What about my existence, just being left alone, would take anything from you, that would justify violent suppression of my actions?

Edited April 27, 2010 by 2046

[2046]

I see. Above, is the basis of law, which is not what I meant to get across with the phrase, "rule of law." I think some of our misunderstanding here has to do with this particular concept which I am trying to get across, unsuccessfully. The idea is that there is nothing wrong with advocating for the repeal of some immoral law, but there is something very wrong with breaking it, unless you feel that the US has gotten to the point where no amount of reason can reverse its current trend.

Breaking a law, any law, because you feel it is improper or immoral, invites everyone to do the same with whatever particular laws they do not care for, regardless of how well they have reasoned it through. This break down in the application of law moves very quickly to situations like what exists in South Africa or on Arizona's southern border. This breakdown in general lawfulness is what made the french revolution so different from the American Revolution. A bunch of individuals all setting their own rules or choosing which to follow and which to avoid is philosophically indefensible in the Objectivist view because it is indistinguishable from anarchy.

The maintenance of civil order is accomplished by the general acceptance that the law may be imperfect, but we follow it until such time as we are able to change it. Without this general acceptance or without the enforcement of law, governments tend to collapse or become even more entrenched in autocracy to maintain some semblance of order.

In short, you cannot protect rights by destroying or fighting against the entity which is responsible for preserving them, except as a last resort.

Is that more clear?

That sounds like any conservative Republican boilerplate.

The "Rule of Law" is not God. There is no moral obligation to obey an immoral law simply because it is "the law." Breaking an immoral law is not showing disregard for "the law" as a concept or as a category, but simply showing disregard for that specific law. A law which has no legitimacy may morally be freely broken and those who do so and thereby pursue values, and rationally further their lives, are heroic. Objectivists of all people ought to recognize this and hold them up as so, not act as xenophopic nationalists act.

[kainscalia]

you cannot protect rights by destroying or fighting against the entity which is responsible for preserving them, except as a last resort.

Is that more clear?

No, it isn't. If the entity that is responsible for preserving them is not, in fact, preserving them but infringing them or destroying rights, then it is moral, proper, justified and -overall- heroic to fight against it and break the offending laws.

There is no moral obligation to follow an immoral law-- to do so would contradict the entire concept of morality.

Edited April 27, 2010 by kainscalia

[softwareNerd]

..., "rule of law."

In short, you cannot protect rights by destroying or fighting against the entity which is responsible for preserving them, except as a last resort.

Even if one grants the morality of following the rule of law, that does not mean one ought to support a new law that further enforces the current rule of law. For instance, I pay my taxes scrupulously. Yet, I am against the North Carolina's effort to get sales-receipts from Amazon, so that they can tax those who do not include out-of-state online purchases on their state-tax returns. Would you favor this attempt by North Carolina.

Would you say that it only fair that other folks get screwed on their taxes just as much as I am; or would you say that it is not a question of fairness of tax as such, but "rule of law"?

Take another example -- based in fact, but partly fiction: abortions are outlawed in Ireland. The law also outlaws travelling abroad with the intent to have an abortion. The second part was routinely flouted, with parents taking their daughters over to the U.K. all the time. In the late 1990's a new law was suggested that would allow immigration officials to note the pregnancy-status of minor girls leaving the country, if they were visibly pregnant. This information would then be sent to the police-station in their city so that they could follow-up. (Also, overall, Ireland is generally a rights-respecting country, not very different from other Westernized countries.) It is quite likely that such a law would ensure better compliance with the underlying anti-abortion law, particularly in rural areas and smaller towns.

If you were living in Ireland, would you be in support of this law allowing officials at the airport to record that a woman who is leaving is pregnant?

If you would support the NC case and the proposed Irish law, I understand your position to be consistently one of putting the rule of law into a very important position. If not, I'm curious why not.

Edited April 27, 2010 by softwareNerd

[Trebor]

In short, you cannot protect rights by destroying or fighting against the entity which is responsible for preserving them, except as a last resort.

Is that more clear?

Breaking an unjust, rights-violating law does not deny the rule of law, and doesn't destroy the rule of law. Fundamentally, the rule of law applies to governments, not citizens.

Illegal immigrants are here, well, illegally. They have no recourse to law to protect their right to be here. Zero. The government will not protect their right; no "law abiding" citizen will protect their right. What right? Their right to be here legally. But they don't have a right to be here legally; they're illegal immigrants.

By their own actions, illegally immigrating into "our" country, they are not demanding that our laws be other than they are - they have no power to make such demands; they have accepted the risk of breaking the law and know that they will face the consequences that the laws which many defend will unleash upon them. Regardless, they are not violating anyone's rights; it's their rights that are being violated.

Their breaking the law may, as it seems to be doing, give us cause to actually look at the laws and change them in the name of justice, in the name of individual rights. If they were simply obedient and did not come, then their "civil disobedience" would not cause a stir.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Trebor

[Jake_Ellison]

How about people who evade taxes? Or go through red lights late at night when no other cars are present? Or people who sell high quality drugs to addicts? or to children? Are prostitutes heroic? People who sell food without permits and licensees? All heroes, or are the only important laws that should be violated the ones that affect immigrants?

There are three categories of actions you listed:

1. Immoral and rights violating action: selling drugs to children.

2. Immoral actions that do not violate anyone's rights: selling drugs to addicts and prostitution.

3. Moral actions which do not violate anyone's rights: keeping your income and trading with others to the benefit of both parties (be it a trade in which money is exchanged for food, or money is exchanged for a service performed)

Do you really disagree with that categorization, and on what basis?

In short, you cannot protect rights by destroying or fighting against the entity which is responsible for preserving them, except as a last resort.

I'm not fighting or destroying anyone, I'm just ignoring some of the things they want me to do. That has no bearing whatsoever on anyone's ability to protect rights.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[JASKN]

For instance, I pay my taxes scrupulously. Yet, I am against the North Carolina's effort to get sales-receipts from Amazon, so that they can tax those who do not include out-of-state online purchases on their state-tax returns

Just to be clear, do you mean that you would actively break the North Carolina law if given the chance, or only that you would vocally speak out against it?

In response to the last few pages of this thread:

The way I see it, any breaking of laws is a denying of Law as such, since the whole idea of law is a unified code under which all must submit -- you can't choose some laws and leave others, because in principle that isn't law, but anarchy.

Given that, there may be unjust laws which you would be morally correct to break, if you can, without getting caught. But you would not be moral to then demand that the law "forgive" you if caught. You would then need to accept the consequences of breaking that law.

As aequalsa pointed out, only after you have given up on the current unified code, the "system in residence," should you consider it moral to break any and all laws. Even then, this should be done only with the goal of instituting a new system, better than the first and morally sound, as soon as possible. And good luck with your life if those circumstances come to pass. (!)

[Trebor]

Crime: "All actions defined as criminal in a free society are actions involving force—and only such actions are answered by force.

Do not be misled by sloppy expressions such as "A murderer commits a crime against society." It is not society that a murderer murders, but an individual man. It is not a social right that he breaks, but an individual right. He is not punished for hurting a collective—he has not hurt a whole collective—he has hurt one man. If a criminal robs ten men—it is still not "society" that he has robbed, but ten individuals. There are no "crimes against society"—all crimes are committed against specific men, against individuals. And it is precisely the duty of a proper social system and of a proper government to protect an individual against criminal attack—against force." "Textbook of Americanism," The Ayn Rand Column, 86.

America: "A dictatorship cannot take hold in America today. This country, as yet, cannot be ruled—but it can explode. It can blow up into the helpless rage and blind violence of a civil war. It cannot be cowed into submission, passivity, malevolence, resignation. It cannot be "pushed around." Defiance, not obedience, is the American’s answer to overbearing authority. The nation that ran an underground railroad to help human beings escape from slavery, or began drinking on principle in the face of Prohibition, will not say "Yes, sir," to the enforcers of ration coupons and cereal prices. Not yet." "Don’t Let It Go," Philosophy: Who Needs It, 213.

Yet?

[~Sophia~]

There is no moral obligation to follow an immoral law-- to do so would contradict the entire concept of morality.

What is moral or not is contextual even in regard to immoral laws.

In most cases, civil disobedience in a mostly rights respecting country like America (it still IS) would be immoral - for the reasons aequalsa eloquently presented. Consequences of one person doing it may not seem very severe but the consequences of advocating it and attempting to do so on a large scale is not trivial.

To attempt to achieve the good by undermining proper function of the government as an enforcer of an established law (which means all laws of that land) when intellectual persuasion against immoral laws IS possible is to reject reason as means with which men should deal with one another. Like aequalsa mentioned: "you cannot protect rights by destroying or fighting against the entity which is responsible for preserving them, except as a last resort."

The only reason why breaking immoral laws seems "affordable" is because most people around you are not engaging in breaking laws they deem as bad. Your reasoning in regard to what is a "bad" law may be proper but other people, with their fuzzy thinking or ignorance or more importantly their different ideology, may regard all sorts of legitimate laws as "bad". If you do not think you should follow the law of the land why should they? Think of all of the socialists and the inconvienent for them US Constitution.

When the processes that lead to rights violations can no longer be reversed through intellectual means - civil disobedience becomes moral.

softwareNerd:

Even if one grants the morality of following the rule of law, that does not mean one ought to support a new law that further enforces the current rule of law.

Thanks. Can't agree more.