Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Illegal Immigration & Objectivism

Rate this topic


Capleton

Recommended Posts

mweiss,

If your implication is that my goal is to eliminate the nation-state as a distinct cultural unit, then you are correct. I want American ideals to be open to all, which includes competition in the marketplace of ideas. If they are truly superior, there is nothing to worry about.

Remember that in a capitalist state, all property is private. If you don't like Mexicans, you are still free to kick them off your land - but you can't stop me from associating with them.

Uh, maybe you should learn your own language before complaining about others' ignorance of it.

From a brief scan of his book, he sounds like a racist, fascist, homophibic idiot.

1. I have no problem with LEGAL immigration. My wife is an immigrant. I helped her enter the country and eventually become a US citizen. What I'm against is an uncontrolled flood of undesireable immigrants. If we allow the criminals, the impoverished, the opportunists and those who cannot adopt our cultural ideals while living here, then we will have lost our civilized society. Drug runners on every streetcorner. Crazy drivers who obey no traffic laws (yes, Brazilians in Danbury, CT drive this way--I was nearly hit several times by them over recent years). A serious problem communicating with the new immigrants. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

2. While I can enjoy my private property, we still do have to go out in public and interact with the general population. What happens when you go to a restaurant and the staff only speak Spanish? Why is it that some jurisdictions in California are making Spanish the official primary language?

3. I know my language very well, thank you. I may make a typo now and then because my hands are large and the keys on a laptop are too close together, but I know how to write and speak English quite well, thank you. I have to say that this comment of yours is most arrogant. I find it abrasive, especially coming from someone who calls himself an Objectivist.

4. I was pointing out one simple truth that Mr. Savage stated. Even a Hitler can speak words of truth now and then. In general, Savage is a religious zealot and when he gets into one of his faith rants, I turn to another station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. While I can enjoy my private property, we still do have to go out in public and interact with the general population. What happens when you go to a restaurant and the staff only speak Spanish? Why is it that some jurisdictions in California are making Spanish the official primary language?

Well, if you can't communicate with the waiter, go to a different restaurant. I fail to see how you use this logic to make ANY conclusions about government policy. The convenience of diners has nothing to do with a proper government. More generally, your preferences for the public sphere have nothing to do with a proper government. Government deals with force and its use against individual rights, exclusively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
If, hypothetically, we had unrestricted immigration, it is likely that more than half of Mexico's population would enter the US almost overnight. There would be a mass influx of a magnitude that is unimaginable in today's standards.

If cultural annihilation is fine with you, then how would you respond to the situation where in a very short period of time, the town where you live were overrun with Spanish-speaking, often criminal-minded, people with substandard hygene habits and no regard for the civilized laws we have here? Suddenly, you would be unable to communicate (unless you majored in Spanish) and bombarded with some very alien culural habits (and the Mexicans are very 'in your face' about their cultural expression).

So by cultural annihilation you mean that there would be a prodigious transplantion of individuals lacking the ethics of the common United States resident. I agree that this can be a serious problem.

I had a friend who studied abroad in Egypt for one year. One of the cultural shocks that he detailed is how most Egyptians do not wait in line to receive services. So in New York, locals of all ages and both genders would wait patiently in a queue to receive hotdogs from a local street vendor. On the other hand, in Cairo, the vendor (perhaps of falafels?) would be besieged by a disorderly mob composed of mostly males 18-45 years of age clamoring for service. The description of the crowds was not usually violent, but more analogous to a crowd at a concert where the majority of individuals are all pushing towards the stage. If these people do not even have the idea of waiting in line, how could we expect them to understand more complicated concepts like intellectual property?

I think it would be both a cultural and a economic disaster if a major metropolitan area was flooded with individuals who do not wait in line for things, lack honesty with basic transactions (such as failing to inform a cashier that they have tendered too much change), behave lasciviously towards women, are less sanitary and generally less considerate. Imposing many different langauge barriers would only worsen the situation. However, New York City seems to be contrary to this speculation.

Of course, I am certainly not proposing that all immigrants exhibit these boorish characteristics. Nevertheless, these less desirable qualities will almost surely be correlated with a lack of education.

It has been mentioned much earlier on this thread that serious, capitalistic immigration reform presupposes a reduction in social services that would increase due to increased immigration. It also seems worth stating that capitalistic immigration reform presupposes a general increase in the ethics of the common citizen of the world.

Although once the ethics of the common citizen of the world greatly improves, then global civilization can start to approach a global capitalistic government that would serve to protect the inalienable rights of all world citizens. At this point, immigration will not really be an issue anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we allow the criminals, the impoverished, the opportunists and those who cannot adopt our cultural ideals while living here, then we will have lost our civilized society.
You've got three separate issues here. We should allow the impoverished and the opportunists to come to the US. My great-grandfather was impoverished and took advantage of the opportunity to come to the US, because he had heard (rightly so) that the US was the land of opportunity. Criminals, specifically those who are actual violators of other people's rights, might rightly be excluded, though that is based on the idea that some prople are "criminals by nature" and cannot choose to behave morally. And as for people who "can't" adopt our cultural ideals, being a Washingtoninan who lived in Connecticut for 3 years, I have to say that I challenge the notion that I have the same cultural ideals as people in Connecticut (especially urban CT). If we're talking about legally restricting the movement of people, I think East Coasters should be prevented from moving into places like Seattle.
Drug runners on every streetcorner.
Businessmen. Drug sales should not be restricted.
Crazy drivers who obey no traffic laws (yes, Brazilians in Danbury, CT drive this way--I was nearly hit several times by them over recent years).
Well, speaking of drivers, one of the cultural things I learned as a kid was that when the light changes and you want to turn left, you wait until the intersection is clear. Except in Connecticut, where you tromp on the gas and beat the first car through the intersection. This used to really piss me off and I thought "By god, the next time the jerk does that I'm gonna turn him in to the cops". So I gave up on that thought when a New Haven cop did that to me.
What happens when you go to a restaurant and the staff only speak Spanish?
You probably went to the wrong restaurant by mistake. You can point at the menu to indicate what you want; you can make a fuss and demand that the owner come out and speak English to you. You can walk out in a huff and denounce the restaurant for not having competent English-speaking staff. I guess it depends on what you want. If you want the Oaxacan goat stew, then figure out what the Spanish is for "Oaxacan goat stew". If you want a Big Mac in the US and the counter person can't serve you because he doesn't know enough English, call the manager (you can give him a talking to).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

One of the minor arguments against illegal immigrants is that they're cutting ahead of other people who're waiting in line. There are two problems with this argument.

Problem 1 -- Multiple Lines: Today, the US has many different lines for immigrants. Not everyone waits in the same line. For instance, when waiting for a "Green Card" there are many different categories, and each has it's own waiting list.

The three major categories are "Family based" , "Employment based" and "Diversity". That's not just three waiting lists either. There are 25 (yes twenty-five) different waiting lists within the "Family" category. A person is assigned to a list based on two criteria: type of family relationship, and country of origin. When considering country, India, China, Mexico and Philippines each have 5 waiting lists and all other countries together have 5 lists of their own.

Consider an example from the latest visa bulletin. A Malaysian in the "unmarried son queue" has reached the top of the line if he applied for a Green card in 2001 (yes), while a Malaysian in the "brother" category would be at the top of the line if he applied in 1996 (yes, 10 years of waiting). Meanwhile, a Filipino in the "unmarried son queue" has reached the top of the line if he applied for a Green card in 1992 (yes, check the link for yourself), while a Malaysian in the "brother" category would be at the top of the line if he applied in 1984 (I'm not kidding).

The employment categories are much better. Effectively, there are about 9 different lines and the worst one is backed up only to 2001.

Problem 2 -- Wrong Context: There's another, problem with the "breaking the line" argument, one that is a rather good example of the role of context. The principle that it is wrong to cut ahead of a line is a good one. However, it has a particular context. The typical line is a queue for some type of resource (a movie ticket, a celebrity signature, the opportunity to ask a speaker a question, etc.). When a line is used, it's a recognition that the folks in the line have no "natural precedence", so they'll be treated first-come first-served. (An emergency would be an obvious change of context; but, immigration isn't typically an emergency situation.) There is another important aspect of the typical line: breaking the line puts some people at a disadvantage (the people who are ahead of oneself). This is a vital part of the context that makes breaking a line unjust.

Remove that context, create a situation where breaking the line does no harm to anyone, and the rationale for the "don't break the line" principle disappears. This is the situation with immigration. People who cut in front of the line do not take anything that someone else is entitled to. Further, they do not slow down the rate at which the line moves. In fact, they actually speed up the line for all those who would have got into line behind them. If 1000 people in line before me suddenly melt away, that's good for me.

(One can still object that such people are not vetted against felon and terrorist databases, etc. That's fine, I can buy that argument; however, the line-breaking argument is hereby debunked.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the fact that illegal immigrants do not slow down my line for a green card but, going forth with the analogy of waiting for a movie theater ticket, how would you feel if you were waiting in the line to get into the movies while others were allowed through the side door? Illegal immigrants break the law and go through the process faster than those who obey the law.

I only disagree with the idea of giving amnesty to illegal immigrants assuming that the other laws for immigration stay constant. I would much rather prefer that the US be open to all immigration (with the exception of criminals etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... how would you feel if you were waiting in the line to get into the movies while others were allowed through the side door? Illegal immigrants break the law and go through the process faster than those who obey the law.
I would not like it, if it were a real movie theatre. However, that is not the case.

To make the analogy work, think of a movie theatre that had two floors, like many older ones did. Now imagine that people were only allowed into the lower/main floor (the legals) and that was the line in which you were standing. Nobody was allowed into the upper floor (it was illegal to go there). However, some people managed to sneak in to that upper floor, without disturbing you in any way. Further, the bulk of these people were such that if they stood in your line, they would be turned away at the gate, for no good reason. Also, to make the analogy work, assume a huge theatre that had no practical capacity limitation relative to the number of people in line, where the only limitation was the artificial one imposed by the gatekeeper.

Now, in this case if you felt some resentment, I submit that it would be a knee-jerk emotional reaction that was fit for the usual situation, but was not appropriate to the current one. I would not fault anyone for feeling an automated reaction -- it would be like faulting someone for seeing an optical illusion. However, it is an illusion.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if i follow your latter analogy, i don't think that the feeling of being cheated is an illusion. What it is implying is that if you go to the US in a legal manner you will be uncertain about your position in the future for all the years. Your visa can expire at any time (what i mean is you may not get an extension) and then you are forced to go back. But, what you're saying is that if that happens you should continue to stay and wait for the government to finally grant you citizenship. So not only are you encouraging people to break the law and cross the borders (which is dangerous because we cannot check criminals), but also to overstay their visas. It's a different matter to consider a law immoral, but to punish those who follow it and reward those who don't is just plain wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my post, I did not address the issue of "rule of law". I would agree that the "breaking the law" argument is much stronger that the "breaking the line" argument. The "rule of law" argument basically says that all laws may not be moral, but we should follow them and seek redress via the mechanisms available to us. After all, this argument goes, if we do not follow that principle, then how can we rely on anyone following any law? It follows, says this argument, that if we do not adopt a rule-of-law principle, then we will slide into anarchy.

However, the "breaking the line" argument is a different one. It is based on a premise that there is some type of resource for which people should legitimately be in line, and it is based on the premise that a person who breaks the line does not simply break the rule of law, but also causes some degree of injustice to those who do stand in line. For instance, you say this...

It's a different matter to consider a law immoral, but to punish those who follow it and reward those who don't is just plain wrong.
I do not see how you are punished in any way by the illegal immigration of others. I think you perceive it as unfair, but it does no harm to you. Could you explain what real difference it makes, what value it deprives you of?

Also, it's a minor point, but just for the record, I have never "encouraged" anyone to immigrate illegally.

I'd be happy to address the rule-of-law argument, but I want to put the "unfairness" argument to bed first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. So I agree that illegal immigrants are not "cutting the line".

The reason that i disagree with legalizing via green card or citizenship is because I know of many cases, including my own, of legal immigration. First, you have to work hard to find a sponsor (for the H1B1 work visa) who won't charge you too much for sponsorship or a college (for the case of an F1 student visa) which won't demand to see a large sum of money in your bank account. Then there is a long process of applying for a visa (imagine the dmv but much worse) which also has fees associated with it. You can choose to bypass this entire process...by immigrating illegally. The same choice exists when one's visa is about to expire. You can choose to pay large fees to a lawyer (if you're very lucky it will be paid by the company). Then you have to wait for months, if not years, for each step of your application to go through (labor etc.). More fees, more forms to be filled, more waiting. Why should i put up with all this when i can just choose for my visa to be expired and have the government grant me a citizenship.

Moreover, i think that the "rule of law" and the "unfairness" arguments are connected. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is unfair to legal immigrants because they choose to follow the law.

I would, however, be fine with the idea of granting work visas to illegal immigrants or granting GC and citizenships to ALL immigrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think that the "rule of law" and the "unfairness" arguments are connected. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is unfair to legal immigrants because they choose to follow the law.
Does that depend on whether the particular law is even just?

*Reactionary analogy time* :thumbsup:

By your same argument, it would have been "unfair" to grant amnesty to runaway slaves - because doing so would be unfair to people who had bought their freedom from their masters legally?

The only thing IMO unfair is that a legal immigrant would have to go through such a convoluted process in the first place. That others find a way to avoid this unjust process isn't the injustice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@hunterrose

1. Your analogy doesn't make sense because slaves were forced to be slaves whereas illegal immigrants are free to leave.

2. I do, however, understand your overall point on the matter. Like i said before, i would prefer a complete overhaul of the system so that open immigration is allowed. But why is it that people only think in terms of deportation or amnesty? There is a middle of the way which would be to grant illegal immigrants work visas. My last conclusion would be to say that if you stand for amnesty for illegal immigrants, you should also stand for amnesty for legal immigrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... if you stand for amnesty for illegal immigrants, you should also stand for amnesty for legal immigrants.
I agree. In fact, the various xenophobic commentators (like Lou Dobbs and O'Reilly) are so hung up with Mexican immigration, that few people realize that immigration from places like China and India is an area of law where action is required, and that action must happen in the next two decades or it'll be moot. [I blogged about this, if you're interested]

Since I too immigrated to the U.S., I'm familiar with the hassles of going through the work-permit/Green Card (GC) process. While it costs money and takes 4 or 5 years, the real hassles are the uncertainities, being tied to an employer, and things like that. For instance, I know of two guys who worked through a small-time contracting company. Two years into their GC process, the owner got a divorce, went on drugs, and started emptying the company's bank account. They quit and began to work directly for the client, but because of the immigration rules, had to start the GC process from scratch. I have a close friend who went through worse, and finally returned to India.

Still, however bitter one feels about the process, the illegal Mexicans aren't to blame, nor do they make the process harder for you. (I'm glad I was not in the position of a Mexican laborer, but instead a slightly more 'favored' category under the law.)

You suggest that illegals be made regular via work-permits, but not given GCs. Personally, I would vote for such a proposal. It's really a very detailed point. My preference would be that all those waiting in line and all illegals be given something very similar to a work-permit: basically a document that allows them to work at will (not under an obligation to work for a particular employer). Nor am I suggesting that they be given special privileges over the guys in the line. Let the same FBI-checks and so on be done, let a fee be levied...nothing special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I think it’s important to clarify that there are two questions at issue:

1. What should be the government’s policy on immigration?

2. Is it moral for immigrants to break the law by immigrating illegally?

I wanted to answer with a definite YES to the second question, and in particular talk about the “rule of law” argument that people who say NO offer. Objectivism doesn’t say we should be moral because it’s immoral to act immorally (i.e., the deontological argument), but rather because moral action expresses and reinforces life-affirming values. So when some people say illegal immigrants are acting immorally because it’s unfair to legal immigrants or because it supports some “principle” of anarchy, I can’t help but feel that they are being closet deontologists. Such a question can only be answered by reference to whether an action supports one’s values. If it’s a choice between

A) dying of starvation or being murdered by an oppressive government or…

;) fleeing to a free country illegally…

How could one say that option A is the moral one? The rule of law is not a suicide pact!

I think the “runaway slave” analogy is pretty devastating for those who think illegal immigrants are immoral, but I will talk about a couple of my opponent’s counter-arguments.

1. The US government is “on the whole” a moral agent (as opposed to southern slaveholders), so one should defer to its authority. How far should one take this argument? What if the government tried to kill you or enslave you for an unjust reason? This is not a hypothetical… Did a Japanese person have a right to flee internment during WWII? Does someone wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to death have a right to try to break out of prison? Ultimately, one can not offer a bright line for either a) how moral the agent must be to be considered “one the whole” moral or :lol: how egregious an atrocity this “on the whole” moral agent can legitimately commit.

2. The illegal immigrant’s dilemma is not “as bad” as the slave’s. While I would say that this is not necessarily true (sometimes immigration is a matter of life and death), once again there is no bright line for how bad a situation one is in before one can ignore the rule of law.

While I’m emphasizing this “bright line” argument, my point is NOT that moral evaluations are impossible. Instead, I think this discussion is a reminder of the superiority of teleological (e.g., Aristotelian or Objectivist) over deontological (e.g., Kantian) systems of morality. The morality of an action must be evaluated according to whether or not it supports one’s life-affirming goals, and I have not seen a good TELEOLOGICAL argument for the immorality of illegal immigration in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I’m emphasizing this “bright line” argument, my point is NOT that moral evaluations are impossible. Instead, I think this discussion is a reminder of the superiority of teleological (e.g., Aristotelian or Objectivist) over deontological (e.g., Kantian) systems of morality.
Exactly so. The entire discussion is predicated on the assumption that moral evaluations are possible. A rigid legal-positivist rule of law stance can at best say "It's the law, the law is intrinsically good" with further evaluation, and no reference to the method of creating law in the first place -- laws should be evaluated as right or wrong by reference to what?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws can of course be immoral, including immigration laws. You ask by what standard laws can be morally evaluated. I say moral evaluations can always be done from an objectivist viewpoint. Whether or not we follow all of the laws on the books has more to do with our fear of enforcement than their moral validity. I think everyone on this forum could agree that there are far more immoral laws on the books than moral ones. The question becomes: At what point does the punishment become less frightening than following the law? I can tell you that if I lived in an impoverished, corrupt, crime-ridden nation, I wouldn't be too frightened of American immigration law. The worst thing that could happen, being deported, would merely return you to your previous condition. That could be frightening indeed. The rule of law is important, but as you have pointed out, the method of creating these laws must be examined to determine their moral validity. The mob rule and the ridiculous interpretations of the constitution cannot be ignored.

As to the welfare state in which we currently reside, this is an issue which is practically, though not philosophically connected to immigration. As was argued previously, every family with four kids and a $30,000 income is taking more than they're paying in. This is a separate issue. The fact that immigrants participate in that system is the fault of the system, not the immigrant. A newborn child of an immigrant adds no more strain to the system than that of an inner-city crackhead, and probably less, being that, on the whole, someone willing to travel 3,000 miles for a job is a pretty motivated individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The GOP and Democrats appear to have reached some level of agreement on a major immigration bill that they've been discussing for over a year. CNN reports that:

The 380-page bill, which comes after nearly three months of negotiations, would give immediate work authorization to undocumented workers who arrived in the United States before January 1, 2007. Heads of household would have to return to their home country within eight years, and they would be guaranteed the right to return.

Applicants would also have to pay a $5,000 penalty.

Of course, it's just a bill, but with the current level of agreement, and with the President saying he supports it, some variant should stand a good chance of becoming law. The Fox News version also talks about more interior enforcement, and a "probationary residency" status that could last more than a decade. [Text of the Bill] (URL corrected now, thanks to TommyEdison - sN) Edited by softwareNerd
"Merged" notice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The head of the household will have to go back to the home country before they can apply for permanent residency. What the hell is the point of that?

I also wonder how many people will actually want to obtain the "z visas" and pay the fine of $5000. I would rather just stay an illegal immigrant, save the money from the fine and by not having to pay taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not people opt for this new system depends partly on the enforcement. The other side of this bill is to tighten up enforcement -- better border, better identity-cards, and so on. Paying $30,000 for a family of 6 is a lot of money; but, I've heard stories about Chinese illegals paying $70,000 a person, for transport to the U.S. Folks may take out loans for the amount, and pay it back as they wait the 10 years for their application to be processed. Nobody wants to be illegal, so there is some dollar figure that many illegal immigrants will be willing to pay to become legal. Is it $5000, or more, or less? If I were to guess, $5,000 does not seem outside the range one would expect.

The "visit home" condition and the $5,000 per person fee might have been included to give congressmen in some districts something to convince constituents that this cannot be defined as "amnesty".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bill is a potential nightmare scenario:

The dealmakers, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a 2008 White House hopeful, stressed that their bill would offer strong border enforcement and interior enforcement and send a signal to U.S. employers "that the practice of hiring illegal workers will no longer be tolerated."

It's not a good sign when a major selling point of a major new bill is that it will majorly increase the government's regulation of the economy.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Charles Krauthammer reported in his weekly column that the current immigration bill abolishes the EB-1 Visa, which is usually reserved for the most productive of all immigrants. Here is an interesting excerpt:

The main provisions of the immigration reform monster are well known. But how many knew, before reading last Saturday's Post, that if Einstein were trying to get a green card, he would have to get in line with Argentine plumbers and Taiwanese accountants to qualify under the new "point system" that gives credit for such things as English proficiency and reliable work history? Good thing Albert was a patent office clerk, and that grooming isn't part of the point system.

Until now we've had a special category for highly skilled, world-renowned and indispensable talent. Great musicians, athletes and high-tech managers come in today under the EB-1 visa. This apparently is going to be abolished in the name of an idiotic egalitarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...