Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/22/19 in all areas

  1. 1. "...a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of ITS CITIZENS [...]" 2. ...has a right to demand that its sovereignty be RESPECTED by all other other nations." "All other nations"- by the same formulation that a nation "is only a number of individuals" - means, as well: all individuals who are presently citizens of other nations. The nation they're applying for immigration to, therefore has the right to ~demand~ that its sovereignty be respected, Rand put it. I read that as individuals not crossing borders illegally. If you're sensitive about ~perceived~ xenophobia and (mostly) unwarranted suspicion of outsiders, Eioul, you could bear in mind that this immigration process is and should be one of mutual respect and value-trade. Candor about one's basic identity is also important. ["Who are you?"]. The same way one approaches a stranger at a social gathering: "Hi, I'm Johnny. Who would you be?" Hi Johnny. I'm the US Government"... That indicates good will, openness and respect, the apposites and demolisher of distrust. Frankly, if that basic information is not voluntarily forthcoming from a prospective immigrant, why admit him? From obligation and dutifulness? This is where the trepidation of several countries of appearing racist (-collectivist) has been concealing altruist self-sacrifice. Both, equally, are the culprits of bad immigration policies. For the nation and "its citizens", they most definitely are owed the obligation by government, of this basic identification of immigrants; to repeat, the lack of it is what causes societal unease and that is NOT racism (- while it naturally does promote xenophobia). I related a friend's tragedy, how an undocumented illegal managed to escape capture and commit several shootings for a long while - the consequence of being anonymous. When an applicant becomes a citizen is when his rights under the 4th are secured, not before. I'd believe. (BTW, even those early immigrants off the ships at NY Harbor had to show some identification).
    1 point
  2. I wonder if unreasonable search and seizure is not becoming a red herring. After all, a physical "search" at the border isn't the real point; what IS the "need to know" by immigration officials, is: "Who are you?" The minimum requirement for an individual rights-affirming nation ought to be identification of the unknown individual. Then would follow the question, do you have any objection to a check run into your past records? I argue, this is not "unreasonable" information to "search" for.* His/her answer, at the very least, would display the good intentions of a prospective immigrant. If he grants his permission, he is implicitly proclaiming he has nothing to hide: he's prepared BY HIS FREE WILL**, to undertake the process leading to citizen status. The value of immigrants and of one's benevolence to incoming citizens, isn't arguable. But I caution not to be naive and intrinsicist about "who" and what some people can be in reality. (And individual rights are "objective" rights, not intrinsic rights). *Checked this once, and assiduously, I'd think the gratuitous and unpleasant harassment of random people in public could mostly be avoided and stopped. **What about those citizens now present, who'd earlier got away from authoritarian states, or organized crime and gangs, or Sharia laws, and so on? Does their "free will" count less than that of the illegal migrants (whose free will Yaron Brook admired)? Their rights, safety and peace of mind, from the identical threats they once knew, and seeing the same bad aspects of their native land following them 'here' -- seems to be overlooked.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...