Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
ARI Media Feed

Open the Borders, End the Housing Glut

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

It seems to me the problems being discussed here stem from illegal immigration, rather then normal, legal immigration. I will say this: It is not a violation of precieved rights to limit the amount of immigration allowed into one's country. Both the workforce, and the culture at large, could not sustain the sudden influx of millions of immigrants. It is said that it is a violation of the rights of those wanting to immigrate to limit such, that thier right to life trumphs the rights of the citizenry of the country in question. I do not see this. If a country does not have a border, a common language, and a common culture, that country would shortly cease to exist. Complete open borders and unrestricted immigration would, in my opinion, result in anarchy.

Edited by Maximus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One major fear of open immigration is economic: the fear of losing one's job to immigrants. It is asked: "Won't the immigrants take our jobs?" The answer is: "Yes, so we can go on to better, higher-paying jobs."

The fallacy in this protectionist objection lies in the idea that there is only a finite amount of work to be done. The unstated assumption is: "If Americans don't get to do that work, if foreigners do it instead, we Americans will have nothing to do."

But work is the creation of wealth. A job is a role in the production of goods and services--the production of food, of cars, computers, the providing of internet content--all the items that go to make up our standard of living. A country cannot have too much wealth. The need for wealth is limitless, and the work that is to be done is limitless.

From a grand, historical perspective, we are only at the beginning of the wealth-creating age. The wealth Americans produce today is as nothing compared to what we'll have two hundred years from now--just as the standard of living 200 years in the past, in 1806, was as nothing compared to ours today.

Unemployment is not caused by an absence of avenues for the creation of wealth. Unemployment is caused by government interference in the labor market. Even with that interference, the number of jobs goes relentlessly upward, decade after decade. This bears witness to the fact that there's no end to the creation of wealth and thus no end to the useful employment of human intelligence and the physical effort directed by that intelligence. There is always more productive work to be done. If you can give your job to an immigrant, you can get a more valuable job.

What is the effect of a bigger labor pool on wage rates? If the money supply is constant, nominal wage rates fall. But real wage rates rise, because total output has gone up. Economists have demonstrated that real wages have to rise as long as the immigrants are self-supporting. If immigrants earn their keep, if they don't consume more than they produce, then they add to total output, which means that prices fall (if the money supply is constant).

And, in fact, rising real wages was the history of our country in the nineteenth century. Before the 1920s, there were no limits on immigration, yet our standard of living rocketed upward. Self-supporting immigrants were an economic benefit not an injury.

The protectionist objection that immigrants take away jobs and harm our standard of living is a solid economic fallacy.

-H. Binswager. Article above.

It seems to me the problems being discussed here stem from illegal immigration, rather then normal, legal immigration. I will say this: It is not a violation of precieved rights to limit the amount of immigration allowed into one's country. Both the workforce, and the culture at large, could not sustain the sudden influx of millions of immigrants. It is said that it is a violation of the rights of those wanting to immigrate to limit such, that thier right to life trumphs the rights of the citizenry of the country in question. I do not see this. If a country does not have a border, a common language, and a common culture, that country would shortly cease to exist. Complete open borders and unrestricted immigration would, in my opinion, result in anarchy.

In essence, your argument is reduced to this: We must retain our collective identity so that our individual rights may be maintained. There seems to be a contradiction here.

Edited by kainscalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For you to borrow those principles and dismiss my arguments in a political system which has plenty of conflicts of interest based on them, is absurd:

I have no desire to discuss this with you further if you are going to call acting on principle absurd. I haven't 'dismissed' your argument, I just haven't seen an argument that persuades me to act against that principle.

Your argument is the same argument that criminalizes drugs and prostitution; there are correlated problems associated with those activities that result in right's violations so therefore they must be controlled, restricted or outright banned. I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me that they do not.

I think that they have a moral right to emigrate here. I will continue to think that until someone demonstrates that immigration (unfettered or otherwise) necessarily violates another individual's rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In essence, your argument is reduced to this: We must retain our collective identity so that our individual rights may be maintained. There seems to be a contradiction here.

Not really. We are dealing with concretes here. In the abstact, it is well and good to mainatin the position that immigration be unfettered and nations be borderless. In reality, this would create chaos. We are citizens of a nation-state, with a system of laws and an identity. This is not a "collective" in a socialist sense, only in the sense that we have banded together to create an entity, a nation, with laws that protect our inherent rights. Without that, we would be simply 300 million individuals pulling in 300 million different directions. As a nation we have the right, and the responsibility, to ensure that the immagration process has sensible controls, to allow for absorption into the American national culture, and to screen for those who may wish to do us harm. With unrestricted access, we could end up with the entire cadre of Al Queda or Hammas on our doorstep, and individuals from third-world nations with communicable diseases infecting the populace. It is in the intrest of our own Right to Life that these safeguards need to be in place.

This is acting in our rational self-intrest, as a nation.

Edited by Maximus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really. We are dealing with concretes here. In the abstact, it is well and good to mainatin the position that immigration be unfettered and nations be borderless. In reality, this would create chaos.

So, to quickly synthesize: there is no relationship between abstractions and concretes. While the principle sounds good on paper, it wouldn't work in reality. Got it. I've heard that somewhere else.

We are citizens of a nation-state, with a system of laws and an identity. This is not a "collective" in a socialist sense, only in the sense that we have banded together to create an entity, a nation, with laws that protect our inherent rights.

Synthesis: We're not real collectivists, just only so much. The term 'inherent rights' reminds me of a quote I must have heard somewhere that went "The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself." I wonder who said it.

Without that, we would be simply 300 million individuals pulling in 300 million different directions. As a nation we have the right, and the responsibility, to ensure that the immagration process has sensible controls, to allow for absorption into the American national culture.

National Culture. Huh. "A culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men."

It seems to me that you're going to have a little problem here. The last time I heard people speak of 'national culture', it was from reading the essays of Wagner and a few of his friends. Dangerous ideas, these, giving an autonomy and life of its own to abstractions such as nations and 'the public'.

This is acting in our rational self-intrest, as a nation.

"A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. " Where is it stated, in the premises of Objectivism, that you as an individual have the right to control the immigration of others, specially when the country is not the private property of one sole individual?

Galloping Jupiter, Batman! It seems to me there's a few contradictory premises here that need to be checked. Of course, when we come to that, there's the question of how one reconciles esoterism with Objectivism...

My right to life doesn't exclude yours.

Incidentally? If we actually had the 'whole cadre of Al-Quaeda' wanting to get into America- as per your ludicrous lifeboat example? That'd be good. Then we'd know where the hell they are and we could finally blow them up- or put them in jail as citizens engaging in terrorism. Already in this nation we have the American Nazi Party and there are encampments that are taken down each year full of radicals against America- inside America. You're trying to paint up and put up straw men to support a rather ridiculous lifeboat argument.

Edited by kainscalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayn Rand elected laissez faire capitalism (which includes the right of people to move freely) to be her ideal political system precisely because it is the only system in which there are no conflicts of interest between rational men. For you to borrow those principles and dismiss my arguments in a political system which has plenty of conflicts of interest based on them, is absurd: I'm sure you can think of a technical name I am yet to fully understand for that (I'm guessing floating abstraction).

I believe you will have to agree with this: In the absence of a political system which fully recognizes rights, Objectivists should derive their guiding principles from Ayn Rand's ethics, not her politics. At the same time, they should work toward establishing such a political system, in a prudent fashion.

Wow. I didnt' think that you'd come out and brazenly say this so explicitly, but that is positively one of the most bizarre things I think I've heard coming from an Objectivist. Political principles are the principles for acting socially. You can't replace them with ethics. Using ethics as politics is an entirely different sort of politics. The concept of individual rights is the basis for acting socially. There is no other heirarchy for acting in absence of a rights respecting proper political system. To try to do so is to say "well, I'm going to give up the idea of individual rights for everyone but me (which is what is implied by "Rand's ethics"), until such time as 'they' establish them for everyone."

How exactly do 'they' establish them for everyone, when no one actually fights for them for anyone but themselves. You just gave up political principles, as such. And you have the most bizarre rationalization for claiming you didn't I've honestly ever seen.

To give up those principles is to succumb to the pressure group mentality of a welfare state pragmatist. That sort of thinking is why the the welfare state/mixed economy perpetuates itself.

Reminds me of Bush: "I'm abandoning free market principles to save the free market." Good luck with that.

Edited by KendallJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no desire to discuss this with you further if you are going to call acting on principle absurd. I haven't 'dismissed' your argument, I just haven't seen an argument that persuades me to act against that principle.

I don't think acting on principle is absurd, in fact I think one should(and does) always act in accordance with a principle, so the discussion can continue.

You are asking me for arguments that would persuade you to act against a principle. However, while re-reading your posts, I haven't been able to identify the principle you are referring to. Please state it, and then I'll try to respond with arguments (or who knows, maybe I'll just accept it, and from now on act on it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, to quickly synthesize: there is no relationship between abstractions and concretes. While the principle sounds good on paper, it wouldn't work in reality. Got it. I've heard that somewhere else.

Really? Where, praytell?

Synthesis: We're not real collectivists, just only so much. The term 'inherent rights' reminds me of a quote I must have heard somewhere that went "The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself." I wonder who said it.

I wonder. A nation is not a collective, at least not this one, not yet. We are a nation of individuals, a Republic, a nation of laws, not of men.

National Culture. Huh. "A culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men."

It seems to me that you're going to have a little problem here. The last time I heard people speak of 'national culture', it was from reading the essays of Wagner and a few of his friends. Dangerous ideas, these, giving an autonomy and life of its own to abstractions such as nations and 'the public'.

So the Unieted States of America has no national identity? No intrinsic culture, no political philosophy? Is the Constitution just an old rag, like Bush seems to think? Is the Declaration the ravings of a lunitic?

"A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. " Where is it stated, in the premises of Objectivism, that you as an individual have the right to control the immigration of others, specially when the country is not the private property of one sole individual?

Galloping Jupiter, Batman! It seems to me there's a few contradictory premises here that need to be checked. Of course, when we come to that, there's the question of how one reconciles esoterism with Objectivism...

And if there is no nation, no goverment to protect those rights, where are you then? A lone individual attempting to defend your property from those who would take it from you by force. Rights are, indeed, individual, but it takes a govenment empowered by just consent to protect those rights that allows you to enjoy them.

Think for yourself, instead of parroting what Rand and Piekoff said. And shouldn't that be Galloping Ghost, or Jumping Jupiter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. I didnt' think that you'd come out and brazenly say this so explicitly, but that is positively one of the most bizarre things I think I've heard coming from an Objectivist.

Bizarre how? When force is initiated against you, you can't live and let live.

Political principles are the principles for acting socially. You can't replace them with ethics. Using ethics as politics is an entirely different sort of politics.

I said nothing of the sort. I said in some cases (i.e. when force is initiated against person A), person A has no business observing the rules of LFC, but rather should derive his principles from his ethics. Not replace political principles with etchics, but derive.

Replace is your word. I never used it, nor did I use any synonyms to it.

To try to do so is to say "well, I'm going to give up the idea of individual rights for everyone but me (which is what is implied by "Rand's ethics"), until such time as 'they' establish them for everyone."

That's ridiculous. Rand's ethics doesn't imply anything you said it implies, and you know that. If you're guessing at what I meant by "Rand's ethics", guess no more: I meant exactly what it means.

How about this? Since my post is there for everyone to see, let people interpret it for themselves, don't try to change words and introduce colorful adjectives just to "help" others out.

And if you have a response, respond to what I say, not to what your interpretation is of what I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, while re-reading your posts, I haven't been able to identify the principle you are referring to. Please state it, and then I'll try to respond with arguments (or who knows, maybe I'll just accept it, and from now on act on it).

Pretty plainly stated here.

RB: But I'll dispell the argument on principle before you even make it; immigration is not a right's violation. As such, rational men should not be prohibited from the freedom to act to preserve their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...rational men should not be prohibited from the freedom to act to preserve their lives.

OK, thanks. This is the principle, as I can best gather from your post.

Is the word rational used in the sense that one recognizes and accepts reason (and everything that follows), or is it used in the sense of man is a rational being (meaning all men are rational)?

I'm almost positive that it's the former, but I'd like to be sure.

The reason I'm asking is because if it is the former, that's a pretty restrictive criteria right there, and I would have no problem agreeing with your principle then. Why would I want to restrict a rational man from doing anything? That's not in my best interest, ever.

I just don't understand how it would prevent me from sifting through non-rational immigrants(if I wanted to): it doesn't refer to them.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just don't understand how it would prevent me from sifting through non-rational immigrants(if I wanted to): it doesn't refer to them.

Thanks.

Well, primarily the former. However, when people cross the border, there is no real way to look at them at say, he's rational, he's not. Since the act of immigration is not, in and of itself, violating anyone's individual rights, any man should be able to cross over the border (on his own accord). The only exception that I would agree to (which has been stated before by someone else) are those which ARE criminals or terrorists who DO represent a demonstrable threat to individual rights. That would mean you could identify people at the border and check them against databases to ensure they are not criminals or terrorists, but otherwise let them pass.

Once they emigrate here, then you can hold them as responsible as you like for acts which DO represent violations of individual rights. The thing that goes hand in hand with the principle I'm operating on is that immigration, in and of itself, is NOT a right's violation, even if it may lead to people violating rights once they get over here. By the same token, narcotics use IS NOT a violation of anyone's rights, in and of itself, though it may lead to people violating other's rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P1: I have a right to self defense and property.

P2: An immediate "open borders" policy would cause tens of millions of poor people to come here suddenly, and find themselves unable to get a job in the short term (because of the minimum wage laws), hence rely on welfare, which would be taken from me, until the system ultimately collapses.

............................

Conclusion: I have the moral right to defend against such an event by any means necessary, including by insisting that opening up the borders should be a gradual process that would at least allow the system to adjust itself without our current leadership driving it into another Great Depression, at a point in time where the US is already in a vulnerable position.

Last time I checked according to the Objectivist ethics, retaliatory force was only allowable against those who initiated it. It's not quite an "any means necessary" senario. I'd quote it but I'm sure your familiar with the passage. Someone petitioning the govt for welfare assistance isn't the initiation.

So by your logic above, the only recourse you'd have, ethically, is against the US government.

The irony then of advocating that we request of our government a policy whereby they restrict what you yourself admit should be a right (in the future utopian state) until such time as they are respecting yours makes no sense. You have recourse against the US government. Instead, you ask the US govt to violate temporarily someone else's rights while you're getting your redress. You're using the instrument of rights violations to supposedly hold off on giving others their rights back, while they listen to your petition for rights. But then, you're the one advocating for the rights violations of others in the meantime. Do you not see how this sort of position is how we got here in the first place. You're not using a "by any means necessary" sort of ethics to get your taxes back, I see.

So consider instead that the same reasons that you think that the govt will not end the welfare state any time soon, is related to the reason that we have closed borders (and that they wont be ending any time soon). That government can arbitrarily violate your rights and those of immigrants based upon the will of the majority. SO advocate for them all as principled rights, and we'll deal with the implementation. I'm curious. Are you also for reducing your taxation, and the welfare system slowly so as not to force people out on the street? That would be the parallel position one would take for gradual reduction in your own rights violation. I could claim for instance that throwing that many people out on the street would increase the crime level, thereby violating my rights. So I'd ask the govt to slowing stop violating your rights so mine wouldn't be violated.

The piece you're responding to however, doesn't specifically state how to increase immigration. Your response to it, assumes a particular method of response that is not at all implied in the first. Maybe you're simply responding to the title and see a hoard of poor immigrants coming over the border; however, the article specifically doesn't address that. It says "free up immigration." The piece is essentially taking up the position I've highlighted in red, and you seem to be detracting it. I don't think it's anyone's right to enter the country and violate others rights directly, and I think the govt is justified in setting up systems to attempt to weed out those who might (or who through their economic circumstances might be forced to in the future). Frankly, the Canadian test system works for me, and I don't think its racist in any way. I want the brightest, smartest, richest immigrants to get shown in first. Merit immigration works for me, and it could darn well be implemented quickly and on a large scale.

I was with you while you suggested that immigration was a right, and only had an issue with temporal implementation, but starting with the post where you claimed an ethical basis to think that this was justified, and your political - ethical "swaperoo", you went off the deep end.

Edited by KendallJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last time I checked according to the Objectivist ethics, retaliatory force was only allowable against those who initiated it.

Haven't read your post yet (I have to run), but just by glancing at the first few lines, I must point out that I did not call for retaliatory force against anyone. Just regular, plain old force, I did not say it was retaliatory.

Normally I would read the full post before responding, but your sarcasm in the second line got to me. If you're looking for a more friendly and considerate conversation, you should only use humor with the purpose of making me laugh in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haven't read your post yet (I have to run), but just by glancing at the first few lines, I must point out that I did not call for retaliatory force against anyone. Just regular, plain old force, I did not say it was retaliatory.

Well, last time I checked in the Objectivist ethics, you can't use initiatory force at all and be in the right. And I specifically pulled that summation of your position because you did call for it. Here:

Bizarre how? When force is initiated against you, you can't live and let live.

You're claiming use of the Objectivist ethics instead of politics. I called it bizarre. You said it's about force. I went back and found the first point where you start to bring this whole idea up. A right to self-defense is about retaliatory force. That's how, ethically it arises. (although claiming rights when you've dispensed with politics is a bit odd, but hey I think I know what you mean)

Normally I would read the full post before responding, but your sarcasm in the second line got to me. If you're looking for a more friendly and considerate conversation, you should only use humor with the purpose of making me laugh in mind.

I actually wasn't being sarcastic. I saw a whole bunch of assertions about you not reading Rand in the earlier posts on this thread, and you specifically complaining about it. It was a hat tip or at least an attempt to give you the credit of knowing it. Of course, had I quoted it you might have just as easily not read it because I'd been too "pedantic". Can't win for trying I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually wasn't being sarcastic. I saw a whole bunch of assertions about you not reading Rand in the earlier posts on this thread, and you specifically complaining about it. It was a hat tip or at least an attempt to give you the credit of knowing it. Of course, had I quoted it you might have just as easily not read it because I'd been too "pedantic". Can't win for trying I guess.

I apologize. Thank you for explaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I realize now the source of my error(after reading RationalBiker and Kendall's posts, and doing some thinking of my own): I was trying to solve the immigration issue (in accordance with Objectivist principles), and expected such a solution to necessarily have a positive practical effect. When it became obvious that this wouldn't be the case, I tried to rationalize the method which I thought would be a practical solution: gradually opening the borders (while selecting immigrants at the beginning).

I now realize that I have no business promoting the idea of stopping people from coming into the country (I would be sanctioning force against innocent people), and I also have no business screaming for the borders to be opened immediately, while everything else remains unchanged or becomes worse.

My original idea (to gradually open up the borders) is a pragmatic solution that may help or hurt me, depending on what Obama would decide to do about the welfare system. So I'm dropping that.

The fact is that there is no immigration issue. There's a culture and underlying philosophy issue. If we want to live in a better world, we need to solve that issue. I believe Jennifer got it right a few pages back:

Post nr. 103

So if anyone asks me for a solution to the immigration problem, from now I'll say that I'm in favor of laissez-faire capitalism. Implementing that would solve the immigration problem.

When presented with the possibility of not being allowed to change the economy, just our policies at the border, I'll tell the truth: I don't have a solution to that. Depending on how bad the welfare state actually is, more people in the country may help or hurt. It's a numbers' game: if the economy is able to grow, despite the restrictions, then more people is a good thing. If not, fewer people is a good thing, since there are fewer jobs available. Either way, I don't want any part of "helping out" through those type of solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... there is no immigration issue. There's a culture and underlying philosophy issue. If we want to live in a better world, we need to solve that issue. I believe Jennifer got it right a few pages back: Post nr. 103
I agree that the real issue is the broader one. Immigration and welfare are only part of that broader picture; any problems in these simply flow from the overall incorrect view of the role of government. For this reason, any advocacy must make clear that the absence of Capitalism is the root of the problem.

However, sometimes one has to decide about specific proposals, within the overall structure of a mixed-economy. For instance, imagine a politician who has some significant immigration-related proposal. One might have to vote one way or the other (or accept the practical consequences of abstention). I understand a reluctance to debate a hypothetical law that has no chance of being on a ballot, let alone being passed (liked open-borders). However, from time to time, there are laws that do not address the overall issue, but do address some aspect of immigration. Some of them deserve condemnation; others deserve support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do not have to be a business owner in order to be a producer. It is the mindset (of a trader and not a moocher) that I was refering to.

Sorry Michelle. I seem to have missed this post before. I sometimes look at a thread but then do not end up having time to read it, then when I finally do, I get bumped further up than I realize. You are right about the trader mindset. I misunderstood your point.

But we are talking here about opening possibilities for legal immigration.

I understand that. I believe that were this possible it would create a more dangerous mix of free market and statist principles which would benefit neither existing citizens nor immigrants in the long run.

Your whole country was started by immigrants. People did not evolve to something more scum in the last 60 years. There have always been people who have been making the same kind of arguments as you are today about the newcommers.

People have not evolved(much) but our political circumstances have changed drastically. To understand my position consider a hypothetical country with 2 bordering countries. One is a free-market with no social benefits. The other is a fairly wealthy mixed economy similar to the US. What sort of person would go to each and why?

I would say that the people who chose to immigrate from thousands of miles away to 1890 America did not have the same motivations as those who immigrate from 40 feet away to what America is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that they have a moral right to emigrate here. I will continue to think that until someone demonstrates that immigration (unfettered or otherwise) necessarily violates another individual's rights.

Wouldn't a concept of collectivism work all ways?

With more immigration, legal or not, coming from countries outside the United States that do not hold the value system of freedom that we have, even though there must be some agreement that it is restricted more from what it was, collectivism coming from the concept of democracy, which does not represent freedom, would violate individual rights.

Currently, there is zoning, gun laws (which were originally enacted because of gun accidents before WWI), social security, and on an on and on.

Those rights are immoral under the Rand concept.

Again, I see no logical reason how in the current social, political, and economic era that we are in that opening the borders would change the housing "glut".

It's a buyer's market right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With more immigration, legal or not, coming from countries outside the United States that do not hold the value system of freedom that we have, even though there must be some agreement that it is restricted more from what it was, collectivism coming from the concept of democracy, which does not represent freedom, would violate individual rights.

Well, I challenge the idea that there are massive amounts of immigrants coming here that are NOT seeking the freedom and opportunity that represent the values of this country. I think that IS why they are coming here. I think that they, at least in some small part, realize that the crap hole they are coming from isn't working so well with the socialized policies they had to live under.

However, if you want to persuade me, you must demonstrate how IMMIGRATION, in and of itself, violate's another's individual rights. You are not talking about IMMIGRATION in this post, you are talking about what they may or may not do once they get here. (See drugs, prostitution, etc. etc.)

I'm glad to have helped Jake with his reasoning and I think it took a lot for him to recognize that and move on. However, I'm getting bored with restating the same principle and the same point over and over while waiting for someone to show me why the principle should be abandoned in this situation.

Edited by RationalBiker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I challenge the idea that there are massive amounts of immigrants coming here that are NOT seeking the freedom and opportunity that represent the values of this country. I think that IS why they are coming here. I think that they, at least in some small part, realize that the crap hole they are coming from isn't working so well with the socialized policies they had to live under.

You've hit it straight on the head, Biker. As the New Colossus says:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles.

From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!"” cries she

With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can find numerous quotes where immigrants, not illegal immigrants, use social welfare programs at higher rates that native US citizens.

The act of taxation and other issues that government uses for force money from me, my family, and others in this nation, including non citizens, to support those social welfare programs are immoral under the Objectivism philosophy as it is destructive to my right of choice for my production, my money.

Not to mention the increase in my payment for hospital services as a lawful citizen, I pay or my insurance pays as a result of choice, but an immigrant can't be turned away. That service isn't free, so my insurance company and I, and the government that forcibly takes my money again, pays for some of that. Generally, even, the money that government pays for those services that they require don't even cover the actual cost of providing that service.

Now, how are those going to get a loan for a home when they can't even provide through their skill set enough to pay for other needed services? I see no positive answer than relaxing immigration will end the housing glut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can find numerous quotes where immigrants, not illegal immigrants, use social welfare programs at higher rates that native US citizens.

Nothing in your last post demonstrates how immigration is a violation of anyone's rights.

Share this post


Link to post
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...