Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Undercurrent

Reblogged: Set the Bar Low for Immigration but High for Citizenship

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The purpose of government is to protect my rights.

 

One person moving from one zip code to another does not violate my rights.

 

Stopping me from moving from one zip code to another does violate their rights.

 

One man associating with another does not violate my rights. 

 

The government stopping me from associating with someone does violate my rights. 

 

 

I’m not sure why this is really a debate to be honest.  I’ve never gotten it. 

 

Nationalism should be dead with Communism since they are simply brothers by a different mother. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argumentum ad Iapidum. Don't do it:

 

That really is an awesome way to argue. To claim otherwise is just not awesome. And not being awesome isn't awesome, so don't do it.

 

I have not taken a position on this thread other than to demonstrate that a claim that was made was false. Responding hysterically does not advance anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However if his emphasis is on "stay,"  what then?  Nobody ever needs to pause in their travels?  That would be absurd.
 
Distinguishing between  perpetually traveling around the country  and  remaining in one place  gets us ... nowhere.
 
Added:  "Public property" may be an invalid concept, but there are public parks, public schools, sidewalks, streets, etc.  Then there is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regarding businesses that violates freedom of association.

 

And yet there is no law protecting all of these defenseless straw men.

Whether or not someone stays in one place is neither my argument, nor does it pertain to this discussion. Enough with this obfuscatory folderol. It doesn't matter where the immigrant stays or goes, as long as he stays a good distance away from the signs posted on your lawn.

How best to wean ourselves away from public property is worthy of investigation, but again I don't really see how it is relevant to the topic at hand. The overly broad scope of the civil rights act has not hocus-pocused into existence a right for you to deny me what freedom of association I still enjoy. Neither is the welfare system such a sorcery. The proper approach to all of these violations is across the board amnesty; amnesty for the immigrant and amnesty for the tax slave.

 

Edited by FeatherFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argumentum ad Iapidum. Don't do it:

 

 

I have not taken a position on this thread other than to demonstrate that a claim that was made was false. Responding hysterically does not advance anything.

Really, hysterical? I thought my response was pretty level headed. But, just in case you're still doubting it, I'll go ahead and demonstrate I'm right, by repeating the same thing again:

Really, hysterical? I thought my response was pretty level headed. But, just in case you're still doubting it, I'll go ahead and demonstrate I'm right, by repeating the same thing again.

Let's go for three:

Really, hysterical? I thought my response was pretty level headed. But, just in case you're still doubting it, I'll go ahead and demonstrate I'm right, by repeating the same thing again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FeatherFall says that what matters is that the quasi-immigrant

 

... stays a good distance away from the signs posted on your lawn.

 

But he won’t.  He will get the vote and nationalize my lawn.
 
About public property:  We can talk about weaning ourselves from public property so that one happy day it no longer exists.  We can talk about rescinding the so-called civil rights laws so that again we can choose with whom we deal.  We can talk about ending the welfare state.   But as we are today:   public property exists, civil rights laws are on the books, welfare of one form or another is everywhere. 
 
Any hocus-pocus is this:  pretending that culture, public property, civil rights, and welfare don’t exist and don’t affect the immigration debate.
 

The proper approach to all of these violations is across the board amnesty; amnesty for the immigrant and amnesty for the tax slave.

 

In practice that means:   first amnesty for the immigrant, then later amnesty for you – except that as a consequence of the first amnesty your amnesty will never come.

Edited by HandyHandle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He will get the vote and nationalize my lawn.

And then he will vote for the League of Nations, for the United Nations, for going off the Gold Standard, for monopoly/trust-buster laws, for creating a social-security program, for creating a Medicare program, for creating as Medicaid program, for laws that support special rights for unions, for laws that allow the state to take property for private use (as in Kelo), for EPA that gives us all sorts of restrictions, for the FDA that keeps drugs away from patients who want them, ... and on an on... Look what the Hispanics have wrought... obviously nobody would want more!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody here said Hispanics began statism in America.  That they vote for more of it is another question.  
 
In 2012,  71% of the Hispanic vote, and 73% of the Asian, went to Obama.  (The Hispanic vote is more important because there are more Hispanics.)  Contrast this with 39% of the white vote going to Obama. 
 
A Pew Research poll (2013) asked Hispanics "Would you rather have a smaller government providing fewer services or a bigger government providing more services?”  Some of the results
 
First generation immigrant Hispanics:                81% bigger 
Adult children of immigrant Hispanics:              72% bigger 
All Hispanics (immigrant and non-immigrant):  75% bigger  
 
I couldn’t find the percentage of whites who answer “bigger” but an educated guess would track the 2012 Obama vote, 39%.   Despite some Hispanics responding "smaller” along with 61% of whites,  all that matters in an election is the final total.
 
Immigration makes the "big government” percent of the population get bigger.  Why would anyone make fun of this?  
 
Immigrants weren’t here when the welfare state got rolling,  therefore it doesn’t matter that they vote for more welfare.  It’s a lousy argument.  
Edited by HandyHandle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Among everybody – whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc. – the number who answered "bigger” was 41%. 
 
Judging from the other statistics, this percent will grow as immigrants become a larger percent of the population.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
A Pew Research poll (2013) asked Hispanics "Would you rather have a smaller government providing fewer services or a bigger government providing more services?”  Some of the results
 
First generation immigrant Hispanics:                81% bigger 
Adult children of immigrant Hispanics:              72% bigger 
All Hispanics (immigrant and non-immigrant):  75% bigger  

Many people who say "less" in practice almost always act as though they want "more", that is if by more we mean more improper actions against individual rights. Consider how many people would want to ban abortion and say they want "less" government. In fact, more and less is not a valid distinction to individual rights. Most people who voted Romney are probably statists for different reasons. A better survey might reveal that immigrants and their children "get" individual rights are about equal to all other groups. That's the number that matters. Dream_weaver's rhetorical is a pretty good idea. In other words, there is no data available to help your claim.

 

How would you measure how many people are not statists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To measure how many people are not statists, one would have to have a measurable metric. This would require the comprehension of a metric to ascertain just what a "statist" is.

And, since money isn't everything, we need to include people who are anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-porn, and wish the state to enforce their tastes on others by use of guns... as an important axis of statism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly disagree with

 

... there is no data available to help your claim.

 

Though the voting statistics and the poll I referenced don’t directly address statism, they’re not far from it, and they’re the best data in that direction available.  We shouldn’t close our eyes just because the light isn’t as bright as we’d like.  It’s not so dark that we must stumble around.
 
I wouldn’t bother looking for a poll that asked "What do you think about statism?”  It’s unlikely the man on the street, and certainly not a Third World immigrant, would know what you’re talking about.  But food stamps and free medical care, that clicks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn’t find the percentage of whites who answer “bigger” but an educated guess would track the 2012 Obama vote, 39%.

I prefer to judge people by what they do, not what they claim. The long list of thing that -- mostly white -- voters have got us into over more than a century is proof that more than 39% support big government even though they claim they do not. So, it seems to me you're hassled with Mexicans not because of their potential to move the country toward statism, but because they are less hypocritical about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... judge people by what they do, not what they claim.

 

I provided both attitude poll and voting breakdown.  To vote is to act.  The attitude poll is relevant too because most people are not hypocrites.
 

... more than 39% support big government even though they claim they do not.

 

The first part is true, a significant number of whites do support big government.  Do most of these claim otherwise?  I doubt it, but suppose they did and we had to apply a correction factor.  We would have to apply a correction factor to non-whites as well.  What matters is the comparison, the difference between the two.  If one is corrected up, so is the other.  The fact remains,  the percentage of non-whites supporting big government is far more than the percentage of whites who do.
 
And whatever the attitude poll shows or doesn’t show,  in the voting booth Hispanics, Asians and Blacks by and large screw the less authoritarian candidate much more than by and large whites do  (by about a factor of two).  After the non-white population reaches a certain point (it’s already 28%), eventually it becomes a sure thing:  the less authoritarian candidate gets screwed, and eventually after that America either balkanizes or descends into dictatorship. 
 
 Simple facts can be talked away but they’ll get you come next election.
 
Leonard Peikoff at the end of his 26 August 2013 podcast, starting 22min:30sec, regarding the Rubio-Schumer amnesty immigration surge bill then in Congress:
 

"I am against the immigration bill a hundred percent, not just one clause or another, for one very simple reason.  It happens to be the case that we are teetering on the edge of dictatorship.  It happens to be the case that if the Democrats continue to have or grow their political power we will be over that edge.   And it happens to be the case, whether you like it or not, that of all Hispanics in America, whether they are rich or poor, self-made men or anything else, 80% are reliably and continually Democratic.  So if [sic, delete ‘if’] you are talking about a bill, I don’t care whether it’s fair / unfair in any other respects, you are talking about a bill that will infuse into this country a massive amount of Democratic supporters and thereby guarantee the destruction of this country.  That is what immigration means today.  And there’s no use asking me in theory what do I think, there is no theory now, we’re on the end.  So it’s a question of buying time."

 

Trouble is, Peikoff more or less retracted this later, at the end of a two podcast debate with Yaron Brook, an immigration enthusiast.  In so many words Peikoff said:  I don’t know, and said how much he admires Brook.
Edited by HandyHandle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Trouble is, Peikoff more or less retracted this later, at the end of a two podcast debate with Yaron Brook, an immigration enthusiast.  In so many words Peikoff said:  I don’t know, and said how much he admires Brook.

 

I don't see that as trouble. It's evidence that Peikoff remains willing to correct his conclusions in light of better evidence. Good for him.

This whole issue boils down to you accepting the premise that you can protect rights by violating rights. You've been defeated by the oldest method of the statist: create a problem --> convince people to fear the problem more than they should ---> convince people to sanction more self-victimization.

Edited by FeatherFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to add another dimension to this discussion.  I don't think that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for socialism. Democrats pander to the left for sure, but not more than Republicans pander to (real) Christians. Both parties are ran by people who want to steal money and who pander to populist movements to get votes. 

 

However I don't think that most Americans are Fundamentalist Christians. I also don't think that most Americans are leftists.

 

The "Liberal Media" is actually very non-egalitarian. Liberal Seth McFarlane's Family Guy is most likely one of the most insensitive programs on television, and could easily be accused of being ableist, racist, transmysoginist, and whatever hating on sex workers is called. Another Liberal Bill Maher had the following conversation with Seth. 

 

McFarlane:  I mean, to me, it's interesting, you have probably the most concentrated collection of people in the highest tax bracket who are also the most liberal. And it's the only industry where that's the case.

And I think that's -- there's two reasons for that. One is that it's a business where the money -- for a lot of us, the money is secondary and the work is first. I want to do this project, sounds fun and oh, great, it pays well.

But it's also an industry that you could make the argument more embodies the fruition of the American Dream than any other. You have people here who became millionaires overnight, the American Dream. You have more of those in this industry, I think, than any other, and they remember very recently paying -- scrambling to pay $600 a month in rent and barely making that.

MAHER: And no corporate welfare here. We make our own way. We are not socialists.

 

 

Joss Whedon? That giant liberal douchebag's television program "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D" is basically a white male's power fantasy. The women are all dolled up to the extreme and are unrealistically good looking for being super scientists and hackers.  A person of color dies the first episode so a white protagonist can learn a lesson. The whole show is a narrative about how important the state is to leftists causes and how we should be willing to embrace state power to embrace leftist causes. Essentially showing his anxieties about how the left doesn't trust the establishment anymore. 

 

Also please look at this hilarious showdown between a far-left social justice warrior and Anarchist Suey Park and Liberal Steven Colbert. http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/03/28/stephen_colbert_versus_the_hashtag_activists.html

 

My point is that there is friction between these groups and a conflict between the mainstream liberals and real leftists is on the horizon. Hopefully it will be less violent than last time.

 

My main question is whether the typical immigrant is just a guy who likes the democrats because they say things that make sense to him and they offer him things that he doesn't have or if he is a third world immigrant ready to be brainwashed by the egalitarian cult? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suey Park all by herself is an argument against unrestricted immigration.
 
FeatherFall says that I accept 
"... the premise that you can protect rights by violating rights." 
 
No, in this discussion the existence of a foreigner’s right to move here is in dispute.  I maintain there is no such right.  We can’t violate a right that doesn’t exist.  FeatherFall (along with some others here) disagrees, claiming there is such a right and restrictions would violate it.  Arguments and counter-arguments have been presented.
 
FeatherFall says that I’ve been fooled by statists who
"... create a problem ---> convince people to fear the problem more than they should ---> convince people to sanction more self-victimization."
 
So, FeatherFall admits open immigration is a problem created by statists.  Will wonders never cease?   
 
Oh, I get it, open immigration is not the problem.  The problem is welfare programs, created by whites before Third World immigrants were an issue.  Such immigrants – all of whom had a right to move here – will eventually take over and change America into a Third World country.  They  would not do this  except for the welfare programs Americans created before they arrived.  Therefore ...
 
I am  victimizing  myself  by opposing open immigration !  
 
That’s FeatherFall’s argument fleshed out.  It’s as absurd as having a real amnesty for foreigners then a hoped for tax and regulation amnesty for Americans later.
 
The moral is not the impractical.  If foreigners really possessed the right FealherFall claims they do  it would lead to the extraordinarily impractical, the dissolution of the America we once knew.  Our current open immigration policy, and worse in the works, is doing just that.   (There are other forces to fight too but immigration is very important now per “the better Peikoff.”)   Fighting this is the moral thing to do. 
Edited by HandyHandle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hilarious thing about this nonsense rationalization is that, if all else was equal, except that it was the Democrats driving the movement to get rid of the evil Mexicans, and the Republicans were the ones defending them, the vast majority of Hispanics would be supporting Republicans instead of Democrats.

Then we'd see scared chauvinists going on left leaning sites instead, raising alarm about how immigration is gonna turn America into a Christian Theocracy.

Fact is, it doesn't matter in the long run. Immigrants don't define a country's culture. Culture is defined from the top down, not the other way around. American culture is going to keep being defined by intellectuals, just like it has been for the past 250 years.

While we're at it, what HandyHandle thinks doesn't matter either, for the same reason. Go ahead, keep going off about how you think Mexicans are gonna sink this country, if you think it will make you feel better. You're harmless. But do it some place else, would you? This is a philosophy forum. Plus everybody hates you here. Wouldn't it be better to do it some place where others hate the spicks too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... if all else was equal, except that it was the Democrats driving the movement to get rid of the evil Mexicans, and the Republicans were the ones defending them, the vast majority of Hispanics would be supporting Republicans instead of Democrats.

 

First off both parties, Republican and Democrat, are pro-immigration.  (A low point was Rand Paul giving a speech in Spanish to some Hispanic group.)  It is the people who are against immigration, they’ve turned to the Republican party and they write and call them.  Republicans are less immigratinist than Democrats.  Despite that, they are betraying their constituency by now working on their own immigration amnesty / surge bill,  (See the Associated Press article “House Republicans Work Immigration Behind Scenes.”)    
 
However, Nicky does have a point.  If there were a difference between the parties, probably non-white immigrants would vote for the one that promotes more non-white immigration rather than the one that didn’t.  
 
Whites are the enemy, not only of most immigrants but of most neoconservatives  (not all, there are one or two exceptions).  For the immigrants look at the stuff La Raza puts out.  As for the neoconservatives:
“... we are becoming the first universal nation in history ... If you believe, as the author does, that the American drama is being played out toward a purpose, then the non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.”
— Ben Wattenberg, The Good News is the Bad News is Wrong
 

Immigrants don't define a country's culture. Culture is defined from the top down, not the other way around. American culture is going to keep being defined by intellectuals, just like it has been for the past 250 years.

 
Blatantly false.  Take an extreme case.  Suppose the American population was replaced with sub-Saharan Africans.  Could it possibly have the culture of the 1850s or anything like it?
 

... what HandyHandle thinks doesn't matter either ...  everybody hates you here.

 

Nicky has lost it, LOL.  Fact is, discussing this subject with people who disagree with my position more or less politely has been very interesting, and helped refine my position.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not a straight question.  
 
It would be useless to repeat my position on the alleged right of a foreigner to move next door.  And I’m not sure what’s meant by "collective personality” – American whites I guess.  I don’t think they have a collective personality, but they do have a common interest in that they, individually, will suffer like the whites suffered in South Africa if and when they become a small minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By implying an "American Culture" your trying to protect, which is just a Nationalist/Conservative argument for Multiculturalism.  If I read that right, which is why I'm asking because it seems to out there to be that.  

 

As for any "right to move", I answered that above.  Someone moving from one zip code to another doesn't violate my rights.  Stopping me from moving does violate my rights. 

 

I even had the chance to practice this recently when I moved from the city up north into the country.  I neither violated anyone's right by moving there nor do they need Obama to protect them from me since changing my adress threatened them some how. 

Edited by Spiral Architect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×