Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'immigration'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Introductions and Local Forums
    • Introductions and Personal Notes
    • Local Forums
  • Philosophy
    • Questions about Objectivism
    • Metaphysics and Epistemology
    • Ethics
    • Political Philosophy
    • Aesthetics
  • Culture
    • Current Events
    • Books, Movies, Theatre, Lectures
    • Productivity
    • Intellectuals and the Media
  • Science and the Humanities
    • Science & Technology
    • Economics
    • History
    • Psychology and Self Improvement
  • Intellectual Activism and Study Groups
    • Activism for Reason, Rights, Reality
    • Study/Reading Groups
    • Marketplace
    • The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
  • Miscellaneous Forums
    • Miscellaneous Topics
    • Recreation and The Good Life
    • Work, Careers and Money
    • School, College and Child development
    • The Critics of Objectivism
    • Debates
  • The Laboratory
    • Ask Jenni
    • Books to Mind – Stephen Boydstun
    • Dream Weaver's Allusions
    • The Objectivist Study Groups
    • Eiuol's Investigations
  • About Objectivism Online
    • Website Policy and Announcements
    • Help and Troubleshooting

Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Other Public-visible Contact Info


Location


Interests


Chat Nick


Interested in meeting


Real Name


Digg Nick


Biography/Intro


Experience with Objectivism


School or University


Occupation

Found 5 results

  1. Objectivist Ed Powell has written a paper against the open borders immigration position of other Objectivists (Binswanger, Tracinski, Biddle, Bernstein, Duke). This raises the question: Does a foreigner have a right to cross an international border? Powell says no. Powell says the burden of proof that any applicant for entry is not a threat to the freedom or security of the country lies with the applicant. The paper is well written, the position well argued. For reference: Binswanger's essay and Biddle's essay
  2. Hi everyone. I haven't been an active poster on this forum since I was younger, but I thought that I could tell everyone about my Objectivist oriented immigration FB page. I started this page because I think that the uniquely Objectivist viewpoint of individualism is missing from immigration discussion. To use some typical examples, the Left talks about some mushy notion of "love" as though it's a winning immigration argument, while the Right talks about "American Jobs" and deterministic qualities like voting demographics and I.Q. tests. If you agree with me that the individual needs more consideration check out my page, thank you https://www.facebook.com/IndividualistsForImmigration/
  3. Immigration is generally beneficial. It usually adds to a nation's economic wealth and military strength, and even to its intellectual power and cultural riches. Unfortunately, everyone in the world today lives in a Welfare State. This is a kind of 'moderate', collectivist tyranny, which could also be described as semi-lawlessness, featuring a permanent civil war between residents, or a Hobbesian "war of all against all". Theft from, and coercion of, one's neighbors is rampant. Big Brother is everywhere nowadays. So it matters how predatory and efficaciously warlike any potential new immigrants will be. Competent parasites and powerful civil warriors aren't desirable. Thus today only the good people should be allowed in to a high-quality nation. Only the cream of the world's crop. The bad people, in turn, should be assiduously kept out. Indeed, the good would-be immigrants should be positively recruited. Maybe even rewarded or bribed for coming over. "Good" means those who enhance the quality of life of the nation. Those who add to the material wealth and raise the level of civilization, etc. Specifically, immigrants to a superior country should be workers -- especially hard and smart ones -- and not thieves/criminals or welfarist beggars. Any such social parasites and nation-destroyers should be disallowed and deported -- even those of long-time citizenship. The highly religious, self-sacrificial, and welfare statist should also be forbidden. People of bad philosophy almost always undermine a nation's culture, lifestyle, and spirit, among other things. "Good" also means the healthy, wealthy, comely, intelligent, well-educated, virtuous, rational, individualist, and freedom-loving. Also those who will quickly learn the language, adopt most of the culture, and become a patriot. A proper, good, and wise immigration policy will forthrightly forbid or expel all traitorous, bigoted lowlifes back to the primitive, corrupt, socialist hellholes whence they came.
  4. Does anybody have any opinions on the ruling? My own summary of the underlying premises of the reactions to it is this: Bad and wrong: discriminating against people based on their ethnicity they did not choose. Prudent and correct: discriminating against people based on their place of birth they did not choose. But I must admit I didn't get into much depth on it. Did anybody here?
  5. Immigration Policy and Working Legally in the USA

    I have an immigrant friend who is in the USA on a student visa, and she would like to find a way to work in the USA legally, but her school does not offer this type of service. She says she has found an agency that can help, but says it would cost her a thousand dollars (which makes it seem non-legitimate to me). Any advise you immigrant lawyer types can direct me to? I've looked it up on the web and all I get are official government sites that say work through your school. Is there an agency that can help her out without it costing her an arm and a leg? Thank in advance! I certainly think that our immigration laws are highly irrational and an immigrant ought to be free to move here without interference, so long as they obey the rational laws. They wouldn't be permitted to vote until becoming a citizen, but early on the only regulations where that one would have to live here for a certain number of years (and perhaps develop land) and they could become a citizen.These days it is far different, and I swear the Immigration Office is trying to instill the idea in immigrants that the USA is not a free country.
×