Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged:Is Immigration Really a Right?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The immigration debate seems to boil down to this: Do illegal immigrants come first? Or does America come first?

Those who argue that immigrants come first are disingenuous and completely dishonest. They claim to care about helping the needy, and perhaps some do. But the people in charge (Hillary, Obama, all the rest) only wish to gain more votes, because of their confidence that millions of illegal immigrants granted amnesty will show gratitude for the instant citizenship and government benefits that follow (as they probably will.)

Those who argue that the country comes first talk about the rule of law, the need to take care of American citizens’ needs first, and not to sacrifice the rights or needs of law-abiding citizens for the sake of others who are not legal citizens. These are all valid points and arguments. But they don’t get to the core of the issue.

Actually, in a free country, there is no battle between the rights of “the country” and the rights of citizens, whether those citizens are immigrants or not. In a free country, what matters above all else are the rights of the individual. The country exists, with its Constitution and hopefully constitutional republic, to uphold the rights of the individual, first, foremost and only. Individuals don’t serve the country; the country serves the rights of the individual, i.e., the equal rights of all individuals.

The best way to fight Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s desire to let a deluge of immigrants into the country is to invoke the rights of the individual. Yes, of course it’s wrong to let people into the country without vetting them. Why? Because it risks violating the rights and safety of the individual. You can let in terrorists and other dangerous people who threaten the life and property of existing citizens. Yes, the existing citizens of the free country (assuming it is a free country) come first.

The Obama and Hillary Clinton people speak and act as if citizenship is a right merely because some immigrant has a need. If you need a better place to live, and the United States is still better than just about anywhere on earth, then you automatically have a right to live here because of that need alone. False. Nobody has a right to something just because it’s good, and just because it’s there. Does somebody have a right to your home, or your car, or your pets, just because they want and need what you have?

But to be fair, it’s the same argument they make when expanding social welfare benefits for citizens, as progressives have done for decades. “Some have a need. Others have the ability to pay. Therefore, those who don’t have an ability to pay will be covered by those who do.” Call it socialism, call it communism, call it progressivism. It doesn’t matter. It’s still wrong, because it makes some individuals slaves to others.

When government may tell one citizen to pay for the health care, tuition, bank bailout, free cell phones, football stadium, schooling, or food stamps of another, the basic rights of the first citizen have been violated. When a country permits this to happen for generations on end, it’s only a matter of time before that government says, “You’re not just responsible for your neighbor, or for someone else across the country. You’re responsible for the entire planet. Now pay up!” We have reached the point where productive and working American citizens are now expected not just to take care of the entire country, but the entire world. It was the inevitable logical endpoint of a mistaken, irrational premise. Yes, people are angry and with good reason. But do they know why they should be angry?

The issue is not “globalism.” There’s nothing wrong with free trade and free enterprise across an entire planet. And immigration (leaving aside the obvious need to rule out terrorists or criminals) is no threat to a free country where nobody is forced to pay the way of others. The issue we should be fighting is global socialism. First we have to reverse course on all the socialism at home.

The false idea that need (real or alleged) automatically bestows a political right is what gave rise to our $20 million debt-laden welfare-corporatist-collectivist-socialist state. Now the very same premise and principle is applied to immigrants. Legal or illegal is less the point. “They need, therefore they will get.” Who pays? You, but only if you’re productive, hard-working and successful. Not only if you live in Connecticut and they live in Iowa, Texas or Oregon; but even if they live in Central America or Africa, and just happened to sneak over the border.

“Brother’s keeperism” is the false idea we should be fighting. Illegal immigration is only a symptom of the deeper problem. The deeper problem is caused by the false belief that man is his brother’s keeper, and that government has the right to impose this obligation forcibly on citizens. Until people rise up and reject this idea, completely and as a matter of principle, nothing will ever change.

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1

Check out Dr. Hurd’s latest Newsmax Insider column here!

 

The post Is Immigration Really a Right? appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center.

View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have a right to live wherever they want no matter what country they happen to be born in.

Quote

If you need a better place to live, and the United States is still better than just about anywhere on earth, then you automatically have a right to live here because of that need alone. False

You are right. You don't have a right to live here because you need to live here. You have a right to immigrate to the US because you are an individual and no one can tell you otherwise (so long as you respect the rights of others).

As far as I can tell, illegal immigration (in and of itself) does not violate the rights of any individual. It should therefore be legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

People have a right to live wherever they want no matter what country they happen to be born in.

You are right. You don't have a right to live here because you need to live here. You have a right to immigrate to the US because you are an individual and no one can tell you otherwise (so long as you respect the rights of others).

As far as I can tell, illegal immigration (in and of itself) does not violate the rights of any individual. It should therefore be legal.

What if said immigrants openly state their plan to overturn Constitution and kill those who disagree with them?

If you say that not all Muslims openly over that, let me ask you: if I offered you a bowl of 20 nuts and told you 5 were poisonous, would you eat the nuts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Claire1964 said:

What if said immigrants openly state their plan to overturn Constitution and kill those who disagree with them?

Then they are threatening to use force. Wow that was hard. 

There are no inherently poisonous people, just inherently poisonous actions and choices. An individual should be judged on the basis of his actions alone, and not on his ethnic or national background. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the title Dr. Hurd selected asks if immigration is a right. As I read the article, it opens with pointing out that the conversation about illegal immigration is essentially a red herring. He closes with the false idea that should be fought against is "Are we our brother's keeper?"

 

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, 2046 said:

What an absolute pile of garbage, who even is this "Dr Hurd" guy? I have a hard time believing an actual PhD could write this.

His psychology stuff is okay, the rest is trash. I don't really get how people are able to reason so badly, yet be a doctor. Then again, Ben Carson is a related example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2016 at 3:05 PM, SpookyKitty said:

People have a right to live wherever they want no matter what country they happen to be born in.

You are right. You don't have a right to live here because you need to live here. You have a right to immigrate to the US because you are an individual and no one can tell you otherwise (so long as you respect the rights of others).

As far as I can tell, illegal immigration (in and of itself) does not violate the rights of any individual. It should therefore be legal.

Citizenship is a contract between the government and the individual. How is forcing one party to sign a contract a "right"? They can set whatever terms they want - i.e. the legal process of immigration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, epistemologue said:

Citizenship is a contract between the government and the individual. How is forcing one party to sign a contract a "right"? They can set whatever terms they want - i.e. the legal process of immigration.

Playing a little devil's advocate here, citizenship is also bestowed by birthright here in the United States. I understand that citizenship can be renounced, yet a contractual agreement is the voluntary consent of both parties. A legal process of immigration is a contract formed between an individual and the agency that acts to implement a boilerplate agreement. How does a birthright translate to voluntary consent to a contract?

Does such an involuntary consent to said contract sanctify the obligation

On 9/1/2016 at 5:06 AM, Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. said:

to pay for the health care, tuition, bank bailout, free cell phones, football stadium, schooling, or food stamps of [others?]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Don't Objectivists want to subvert the constitution?

Do you think Objectivism seeks to subvert, or shore up the constitution? Personally, I think the constitution was a major step in the right direction. Objectivism offers an moral underpinning for individual rights, one of the key tenants the constitution sought to underwrite. Am I overlooking something here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 2046 said:

And what's with this superstitious reverence for the constitution? Don't Objectivists want to subvert the constitution? What's with people sounding more like Rush Limbaugh than Lysander Spooner? So much for "radicals for capitalism"...

 

I have no idea what a superstititious reverence for the constitution is.  Explain, please.

I am not an Objectivist, so I don't know what "Objectivists want."

I guess Rand wasn't an Objectivist, since you can see from the quotes below she greatly admired that document.

 

WEBPAGE_20160903_032020.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few comments in this thread that I've read, and reread, and still I don't know what their respective authors believe or wish to communicate. A little less attempted wit or brevity or snark and a little more plain-spoken earnestness and elaboration would probably go a long way.

Regarding immigration: yes it is a right, as has recently been discussed elsewhere. It is as SpookyKitty said, "You have a right to immigrate to the US because you are an individual and no one can tell you otherwise (so long as you respect the rights of others)."

No, this does not extend to "people who threaten to kill and kill Americans," but that's not an issue with immigration, per se (there are American citizens who also threaten to kill and kill Americans -- they are also criminal), and it is not a justification for restricting the rights of people who do not threaten to kill and kill Americans, whether immigrant or otherwise. In the case of someone who may (theoretically) be an enemy, or a criminal, but of whom we have no proof or specific suspicion, well... "innocent until proven guilty."

Regarding the Constitution: it certainly was, as dream_weaver said, "a major step in the right direction," and ought be appreciated as such. Yet it is not perfect. In that we recognize its imperfection (to some degree borne out by the political results over the last couple centuries), I think it's also right to say that Objectivists generally wish to "subvert" the document, in that we wish to make substantial changes to it and to the system it defines. If people wish to defend the Constitution as written (if they regard that goal as something good, generally), they should not look to the Objectivists, who instead wish to enact Capitalism in full measure, contra both contemporary and historical American law. ("Radical.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 9/2/2016 at 10:41 PM, dream_weaver said:

Playing a little devil's advocate here, citizenship is also bestowed by birthright here in the United States. I understand that citizenship can be renounced, yet a contractual agreement is the voluntary consent of both parties. A legal process of immigration is a contract formed between an individual and the agency that acts to implement a boilerplate agreement. How does a birthright translate to voluntary consent to a contract?

Does such an involuntary consent to said contract sanctify the obligation

 

It seems like you've answered your own question. If you can leave at any time, then it's voluntary.

Edited by epistemologue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, epistemologue said:

It seems like you've answered your own question. If you can leave at any time, then it's voluntary.

Yes, you may renounce citizenship voluntarily. I'll try to clarify the question at the end: How does birthright translate into entering the contract voluntarily to begin with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Yes, you may renounce citizenship voluntarily. I'll try to clarify the question at the end: How does birthright translate into entering the contract voluntarily to begin with?

I think the current "opt-out" system is flawed, you should have to volitionally choose citizenship in order to get it, but that doesn't change the fact that the system is fundamentally based on consent, and always has been.

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...