Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
MisterSwig

Immigration restrictions

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

If you deny a Nazi from becoming a citizen, but still permitting their freedom of speech, you would prevent them from reaching any kind of political power anyway

Can you define what a citizen is? What makes a citizen different from a non-citizen? Citizenship is the permission. How are you "permitted" to have free speech if you're not a citizen? Who permits you and for what reason? What quality determines which government enforces your rights? Does the American government protect my free speech in India? Why not?

 

1 hour ago, 2046 said:

Citizenship is a type of relationship or association.

Between who?

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So like, you guys are basically trying to make the same point as Yaron, just calling things different words.

Of course these things are different. Voting, citizenship, residency, one's rights. At some point, you're going to have to decide who in the political community gets to decide how the political organization is managed. Obviously Yaron (and Eiuol and I and standard liberal political theory) are calling this citizenship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 6:56 PM, EC said:

Do you believe morality stops being moral in 20-30 years when this technology is commonplace? 

 

On 1/23/2019 at 6:48 PM, MisterSwig said:

If you make man effectively immortal, then you effectively remove the basis for Rand's moral system.

 

1. 20-30 years is hilarious. Maybe if you got rid of the FDA first?

2. I made a new thread for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, human_murda said:

Citizenship is the permission. How are you "permitted" to have free speech if you're not a citizen?

They should have it whether or not they are a citizen. I said "permitted" just to emphasize that nothing is taken away.

14 hours ago, human_murda said:

Who permits you and for what reason?

No one permits, but it is permitted because all people have rights (and obviously the government isn't trying to deny it if it is permitted).

14 hours ago, human_murda said:

What quality determines which government enforces your rights?

Geographic jurisdiction. 

14 hours ago, human_murda said:

Does the American government protect my free speech in India? Why not?

No, and it should not. Different geographic jurisdiction. Outside the country's borders, I don't know a good reason to protect the rights of noncitizens as far as foreign policy is concerned. Within the borders, it's a good idea to protect the rights of noncitizens because it helps maintain the very basis for society anyway.

I already defined what a citizen is, and 2046 sees it the same way think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Outside the country's borders, I don't know a good reason to protect the rights of noncitizens as far as foreign policy is concerned.

And what about citizens? What if an American student studying in China or, say, Saudi Arabia gets detained by the Chinese government or Saudi government? Should the American government care? Why should they care?

 

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

No one permits, but it is permitted because all people have rights

I'm not questioning whether non-citizens have rights. I'm questioning whether the rights of non-citizens can be legally enforced by a particular government (since if you're not a citizen of a country, the legal enforcement of your rights don't come under that government, even if you're physically present in that country). If you don't have legal status (citizenship/visa), the government has no obligation to protect your rights, even if you're in that country (as is the case with many "illegals" in USA currently). Citizenship is your legal status, that entitles you to protection from a particular government. The fact that a particular government has jurisdiction over a geographic area is not sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2019 at 1:21 PM, MisterSwig said:

Non-citizens at the border are not citizens. They therefore do not have the rights of a citizen, such as the right to be in this country.

They have the same rights as anyone else. Their rights are just going to be enforced by a different government. However, once they enter the country, the foreign government doesn't have any jurisdiction, so it's better to transfer citizenship (or give them visa, depending on intentions).

Citizenship is part of the machinery that determines who enforces the protection of your rights. People still have rights, even if they're not citizens. Not being a citizen only means that your rights cannot be enforced (by the government you're not a citizen of). If you're not a citizen, you still have the right to enter a country, although that right is to be enforced by a foreign government (which is an awkward arrangement). The correct way would be to transfer citizenship, so that enforcement of rights can still be followed (deportation would be contrary to the enforcement of rights, for which the concept of citizenship was designed anyway).

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, human_murda said:

I'm not questioning whether non-citizens have rights. I'm questioning whether the rights of non-citizens can be legally enforced by a particular government (since if you're not a citizen of a country, the legal enforcement of your rights don't come under that government, even if you're physically present in that country). If you don't have legal status (citizenship/visa), the government has no obligation to protect your rights, even if you're in that country (as is the case with many "illegals" in USA currently). Citizenship is your legal status, that entitles you to protection from a particular government. The fact that a particular government has jurisdiction over a geographic area is not sufficient.

You can question it all you want. You can question a lot of things. Questions are free here on Objectivism Online dot com.

Constructing an an actual argument that isn't dumb as shit and begs the entire question, well that's harder than it seems for most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Constructing an an actual argument that isn't dumb as shit and begs the entire question, well that's harder than it seems for most people.

Maybe if you stick to actual meanings of words, your arguments wouldn't be worse than trash.

Clearly, everyone has been wrong all along. Taking away citizenship, making every immigrant an illegal immigrant is the solution everyone has been yearning for. Everyone should be an illegal immigrant because anything else is "dumb as shit" and all its corollaries.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, human_murda said:

Citizenship is part of the machinery that determines who enforces the protection of your rights.

I'm saying you don't have a right to enter a foreign country at will. It is a privilege granted by the government that controls that territory. Let me give you another hypothetical example of what I'm talking about. Imagine that the United States puts a military base on the moon. To protect this base, we deem it necessary to patrol the moon with weaponized spaceships in orbit, and to check every foreign spaceship and question every foreigner attempting to land on the moon. Are we violating the rights of others to land on the moon? Or are we protecting the rights of the people on the base and the property of the people of America?

Citizenship actually has little to do with it. Citizens might be less suspected at checkpoints, because we know who they are, but the reason to have border control has to do with protecting the life and property within the border. It doesn't matter whether the particular people on the base, or inside the border, are citizens or visitors. What matters is that the government is responsible for protecting that territory.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

To protect this base, we deem it necessary to patrol the moon with weaponized spaceships in orbit, and to check every foreign spaceship and question every foreigner attempting to land on the moon. Are we violating the rights of others to land on the moon?

If you prevent them from landing for no legitimate reason (involving any actual, past violation of rights), then yes. If you just ask them questions and let them land anyway, no.

 

35 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Citizens might be less suspected at checkpoints, because we know who they are, but the reason to have border control has to do with protecting the life and property within the border.

People can travel without violating the life and property of people within a border. That's not physically impossible (unless they're on a 737 max). If they do violate it, they can be deported, but not beforehand.

 

35 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

I'm saying you don't have a right to enter a foreign country at will. It is a privilege granted by the government that controls that territory.

I would say that the government controls, not the entry, but the flow of people through the border. They can check the immigrants for any past crimes committed or if they have enough funds for rent, etc but if they satisfy the criteria, the government cannot stop them. That privilege is not theirs to grant. The government cannot control your destination, even if they control how you reach there.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, human_murda said:

And what about citizens? What if an American student studying in China or, say, Saudi Arabia gets detained by the Chinese government or Saudi government?

I thought it didn't need to be said, but citizens could get that protection, and that would make sense. That's what citizenship could grant you.

We were talking about how things could be. Now you're talking about how things are. I'm interested in how citizenship can be made difficult without undermining rights protection, in a way that minimizes any need for immigration restrictions Swig was talking about. Within borders = all rights protected of all people; outside of borders = the government should only protect the rights of its citizens. Anyone who says "immigration should be easy, citizenship should be hard" probably thinks along those lines. Clearly, that's not how it is. 

7 hours ago, human_murda said:

Taking away citizenship, making every immigrant an illegal immigrant is the solution everyone has been yearning for.


What are you talking about? No one said that not having citizenship means you are an illegal immigrant... 

I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing about. It sounds like you are stuck on one way to think of citizenship, as if citizenship is required to have your rights protected. It's really convoluted. I mean, if you come to post here, expect to be called out when what you say doesn't make sense. All I really see is "but guys, if you don't have citizenship, how could your rights be protected!". Begging the question, stupid argument, etc. Don't take it personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing about.

I'm disagreeing with the idea that you should take away people's citizenship.

 

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I thought it didn't need to be said, but citizens could get that protection, and that would make sense.

The point was that geographical jurisdiction wasn't the quality that determines which government enforces your rights, as you said earlier.

 

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

No one said that not having citizenship means you are an illegal immigrant.

I don't know what kind of hypothetical world you're inhabiting where (a fraction of people) not having citizenship or visas or legal status of any kind (while others do) doesn't make them illegal aliens.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, human_murda said:

or visas or legal status of any kind

We were talking about immigration being easy and citizenship being hard. Where are you getting "not having any legal status of any kind" from? Why are you talking about visas? I haven't even mentioned yet anything about recognition below the level of a citizen.

41 minutes ago, human_murda said:

The point was that geographical jurisdiction wasn't the quality that determines which government enforces your rights

Probably the main part though. Although I think any proper government should protect the rights of everyone within their jurisdiction, regardless of specific legal status. Of course, it's not proper to be a superhero and be altruistic and go around the world saving everyone - that's why my answer about rights protection should change outside the borders of the country.

It should go without saying that I don't like the way the entire immigration system works, and I don't like how the system of becoming a citizen works. For the US anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I'm saying you don't have a right to enter a foreign country at will.

Doesn't that assume every potential immigrant to be guilty until proven innocent?

 

Every single person here seems to agree that people should be able to immigrate for work or study (etc) but not to blow shit up. I doubt there'd be any disagreement if everyone had their intentions printed on their forehead; the problem is that they don't, and how do we deal with that uncertainty. Denying that anyone has the "right" to immigrate (and calling it a privilege that can be revoked at any time, for any reason) only makes sense if you're dealing with that uncertainty by assuming all foreigners to be guilty until proven innocent.

I hope I'm not inventing some straw man of your position (and please let me know if I am) but that really is the only way I've been able to make heads or tails of it.

 

And obviously, if I'm not too far off base, then that'd be something to consider. There's a reason why we don't make that assumption about our native citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Where are you getting "not having any legal status of any kind" from?

 

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Although I think any proper government should protect the rights of everyone within their jurisdiction, regardless of specific legal status.

Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that immigrants shouldn't get citizenship and don't even need legal status.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, human_murda said:

predicated on the idea that immigrants shouldn't get citizenship

I didn't say a thing like that. Where did I say or imply immigrants shouldn't get citizenship? 

1 hour ago, human_murda said:

don't even need legal status

No one should in order to have their rights protected and any rights-respecting society, no legal status required for that bare minimum within the borders of the country. But where did I say or imply that an immigrant doesn't need any kind of legal status? 

 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, human_murda said:

Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that immigrants shouldn't get citizenship and don't even need legal status.

 

40 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

No one should in order to have their rights protected and any rights-respecting society, no legal status required for that bare minimum within the borders of the country.

If anyone here is arguing for some sort of An-Cap-type multi-government system (or anything like it) then please speak now and save the rest of us another ten pages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Doesn't that assume every potential immigrant to be guilty until proven innocent?

Guilty of what? Must we assume guilt to check for threats at the border? Border control is not the judicial system. It's a police agency, and the police must be allowed to detain and question people in order to safeguard the nation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

But where did I say or imply that an immigrant doesn't need any kind of legal status? 

 

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

no legal status required for that bare minimum within the borders of the country

Essentially implying that there would be some immigrants stuck with the bare minimum: no legal status.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? "Hard" doesn't mean "shouldn't."

7 hours ago, human_murda said:

Essentially implying that there would be some immigrants stuck with the bare minimum: no legal status.

Read the rest of the sentence. 

not any in order to have their rights protected in any rights-respecting society =/= not any for anything 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

not any in order to have their rights protected in any rights-respecting society =/= not any for anything

If not for rights protection, why would all these immigrants be given legal status? What makes it necessary to give every immigrant legal status? What is every immigrant entitled to, apart from rights protection (that makes it necessary to give all of them some so-called legal status in your society)?

If there is nothing more (than rights protection) all immigrants are entitled to, they're not getting any legal status (in your society).

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming that you read carefully what I said that citizenship could grant someone, all we have to do is imagine legal scenarios that aren't individual rights. Weapons regulations, limited voting rights, procedures in a court of law, jobs you can hold within government, etc. This would be a legal status. Maybe you thought I meant status as a legal immigrant or an illegal immigrant? That's not what I was talking about, I actually don't even think legal versus illegal immigrant is a useful legal distinction. I'm not saying anything deeper than "earning the right to participate in government should not come easy, but having your rights protected in a rights protecting society shouldn't be a struggle." Maybe you could think of it as essentially all immigrants are legal immigrants, although I would have all kinds of rules about legal privileges beyond rights protection.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I'm not saying anything deeper than "earning the right to participate in government should not come easy, but having your rights protected in a rights protecting society shouldn't be a struggle."

That translates to this:

On 9/1/2019 at 7:39 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Then we should make it easy to immigrate and become a citizen but very hard to gain enfranchisement.

not what Yaron Brook said (and no, it's not a matter of definition. You can't define citizenship away and expect it to have no consequences).

Edited by human_murda

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...