Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged: Considering Trump on Immigration

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

George Will writes a must-read column against Donald Trump's insulting, xenophobic, and liberty-threatening proposals regarding illegal immigrants. After correctly noting that, "To will an end is to will the means for the end" (as well as a few of Trump's other anti-liberty positions), Will elaborates on some of these proposals:

Trump evidently plans to deport almost 10 percent of California's workers and 13 percent of that state's K-12 students. He is, however, at his most Republican when he honors family values: He proposes to deport intact families, including children who are citizens. "We have to keep the families together," he says, "but they have to go." Trump would deport everyone, then "have an expedited way of getting them ["the good ones"; "when somebody is terrific"] back." Big Brother government will identify the "good" and "terrific" from among the wretched refuse of other teeming shores.

Will elaborates further on the costs of such policies in more than just monetary terms. Although I think there is a strong case for citizenship reform, I otherwise agreewith most of what Will says.

As a bonus, or if you are too pressed for time, I recommend following the link for an accompanying editorial cartoon which I think perfectly sums up the Trump candidacy.

-- CAV

Link to Original

Link to comment
Share on other sites

August 26, 2015

 

I would like to invite anyone interested in IMMIGRATION POLICY and on weighing in on this in depth debate about immigration at Amy Peikoff's blog DONTLETITGO.com.  (192 posts so far)

 

The debate is a follow up of Amy's Blog Talk Radio Show last weekend.  Catch the rewind here:

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amypeikoff/2015/08/23/dligu-a-discussion-of-immigration-policy

 

 

 

It's getting really interesting and hopefully it has sparked new thought on the issue of immigration.

Edited by freedombreeze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trump phenomena is fascinating.

If you leave aside immigration, here's a guy who supports lots of key anti-GOP things: abortion, universal health care, eminent domain, protectionism, progressive taxation, drug liberalization. Despite this, he's been drawing people who consider themselves closer to the GOP, even though many of their actual views are statist. 

 

"Buss Windrip for president!" cry the American bigots while rubbing their Sean Hannity prayer beads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has air of a media diversion,...

Trump taps into a real demographic out there. So, this is not just a good news-story that is being hyped. It is true that he stands little chance of the getting the GOP nomination, but there's an audience that genuinely responds to him.

It's not a new audience. Sometimes the Progressive party comes along and taps into them, sometimes it's talk of a cross of gold, sometimes the WASPy FDR is riling them up, and now Donald Trump. It's a dangerous crowd because they mask their collectivism, statism and nationalism in the guise of individual rights... they claim to be fighting for their rights!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump’s success shows that either (1) most Republicans would violate rights wholesale, or (2) foreigners have no right to enter the U.S., and citizens have no right to import them.
 
Dos restricting immigration violate anyone’s individual rights;  is giving the border meaning a legitimate purpose of government?  Yes or no – that’s the bone of contention.
 
It’s a pragmatic kind of question but what will America be like when more than 90% of the population is African, Asian, or Amerindian and whites are a tiny minority?  Or are we not supposed to notice what’s happening?
 
America will break up long before 90%.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Trump’s success shows that either (1) most Republicans would violate rights wholesale, or (2) foreigners have no right to enter the U.S., and citizens have no right to import them.
 
Dos restricting immigration violate anyone’s individual rights;  is giving the border meaning a legitimate purpose of government?  Yes or no – that’s the bone of contention.
 
It’s a pragmatic kind of question but what will America be like when more than 90% of the population is African, Asian, or Amerindian and whites are a tiny minority?  Or are we not supposed to notice what’s happening?
 
America will break up long before 90%.
 

 

I wouldn't worry about it. America was racist when it was built, but it wasn't built ON racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump’s success shows that either (1) most Republicans would violate rights wholesale, or (2) foreigners have no right to enter the U.S., and citizens have no right to import them.

A politician's success does not "show" anything one way or the other about the rightness of a stance. So, it cannot show #2. As for #1, yes it does show that, but this is not news: most Republicans have always supported all sorts of statist and protectionist schemes, as well as being for drug-control and anti-abortion... and until recently, anti-gay.

 

Dos restricting immigration violate anyone’s individual rights;  is giving the border meaning a legitimate purpose of government?  Yes or no – that’s the bone of contention.

This might be a contention among Objectivists and other intellectuals but it is not a contention of anyone actually running for President. If you want to consider the intellectual argument which has little relevance to practical events in this century, then you have framed the question incorrectly because you've stepped back to something that few would seriously question if it is abstract enough.

 

It’s a pragmatic kind of question but what will America be like when more than 90% of the population is African, Asian, or Amerindian and whites are a tiny minority?  Or are we not supposed to notice what’s happening?

The people who brought us communism were Caucasians who lived relatively close to the Caucasus mountains ;) FDR was as white and WASPy as the next guy, and he's responsible for the biggest ever jump in statism among U.S. presidents. The progressive movement was a movement of white farmers. Teddy Roosevelt was a trust-busting white guy. On the other hand, there were lots of good white guys too. Race does not determine political ideology.

The Progressives, Teddy, and FDR were supported by a lot of people -- mostly white, but that's not a causal factor, merely a reflection of the largest demographic -- who felt that they were losers... that the world was cheating them out of something... that they had to rise up and fight for their rights. The irony is that their ignorance of politics meant that they pushed the country further into statism.

The same thing is happening now, across the political spectrum. people who feel they have not recovered from the great recession are mad and looking for someone else to blame. It does not strike them to look at their own faces in the mirror. Instead, like always, they look for a scapegoat: "I am not a loser", they cry, "It is that guy who is keeping me down. If that Jew was not lending money at high rates, I would be able to succeed in life. If that Mexican was not taking 'my' job, I would not feel so out of control." [One author called these, "The Disaffected]

 

The real problem in the U.S. economy is too much statism. There was a time when you could check off industry after industry -- telecoms, steel, cars, healthcare, agriculture, home-building, finance, education -- and you would find the U.S. more free than most other countries. You would not be able to do that today. Healthcare is much more free in most of the third-world than it is here. Education has been so for a while. As most of the world reduced government control of the economy the U.S. continued to increase it. While people debate between stimulus and austerity, the real need is for economic freedom. That is something Trump does not bring to the table. he is as statist, protectionist, and economically fascist as Hillary. 

 

Looking much longer term, the real problems in the U.S. economy will revolve around things like Social security, Medicare, welfare and the debt. Again, Trump falls down on these.

 

He ignored the really serious problems and -- in a misdirection -- panders to the fears and insecurity that have been caused by all this statism, and finds a scapegoat in Mexicans! This would be funny if so many people did not fall for him, in their grasping for a straw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump taps into a real demographic out there. So, this is not just a good news-story that is being hyped. It is true that he stands little chance of the getting the GOP nomination, but there's an audience that genuinely responds to him.

It's not a new audience. Sometimes the Progressive party comes along and taps into them, sometimes it's talk of a cross of gold, sometimes the WASPy FDR is riling them up, and now Donald Trump. It's a dangerous crowd because they mask their collectivism, statism and nationalism in the guise of individual rights... they claim to be fighting for their rights!

I should have stated that as "This has air of a diversion for the media": Recollecting Perot's independent run, he ended up the scapegoat for the Republican loss. If Trump stays the course, I would anticipate a repeat.

 

I look at your assessment of the crowd and think of Thomas Paine's words about nature putting a proper price on all her goods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
On 8/28/2015 at 7:51 PM, dream_weaver said:

I should have stated that as "This has air of a diversion for the media": Recollecting Perot's independent run, he ended up the scapegoat for the Republican loss. If Trump stays the course, I would anticipate a repeat.

 

I look at your assessment of the crowd and think of Thomas Paine's words about nature putting a proper price on all her goods.

I have a little crow to digest here. Historical data trumps empirical data. (No pun intended.)

Looking into the history of anomalous U.S. Presidential elections, President Hoover was also an independent wealthy businessman that won in 1928. Hoover had some skills as an administrative technocrat, and a Cabinet secretary prior to becoming president.

While Hoover's public works project put his name on the Hoover Dam, the notion of the Trump Card . . .


After reading this write-up on Lew Rockwell, the parallel of the movie as a metaphor for Trumps campaign might be better represented as a parallel for philosophy. While not the best analogy, when you put a train on full-speed autopilot, the lay of the track determines the destination and consequences without someone in the cab making speed and/or course adjustments.

Great quote that comes to mind:

Frank to Will regarding the 5 extra cars left attached: This ain't training. In training they just give you an F. Out here you get killed.

 

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...