Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
MisterSwig

Immigration restrictions

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Yes. The added bit about violence was more for MisterSwig because I expect he would ask "if that's okay, then is there anything that isn't okay?". In this case, about the Nazis, it's pretty close to the edge of what I say is okay. It's worth observing to keep apprised of what's going on, but that's about it. The Nazi's you described do not pose imminent or definite threat, nothing more than a probability. 

Okay, so just to confirm that I'm reading your answer correctly: immigration to a country for the purpose of fundamentally changing its form of government to totalitarianism is a right. In any numbers, even if it's organized and taking place in mass. Correct?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


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

I have a problem with the inclusion of "imminent" in that ruling.

That wasn't the question. That was just a statement of fact: that's what US law says. Being a Nazi (with everything that implies, as described in my post above) is not a crime in the United States. So, with that fact in mind, do you want to answer the question: should it be a right to organize the mass migration of ideological Nazis, who's stated goal is to create a fascist, national socialist government, and then achieve racial harmony by having the government murder all non-whites, into the US?

Again: holding and expressing such beliefs is the constitutionally guaranteed right of Americans. That's not what my question is. My question is, should it also be the right of would be immigrants, or should there be a double standard?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-American's should have identical rights to American's. Which should have the same rights as people from the Andromeda galaxy, which should have the same rights as a non-biological rational entity 40-billion light-years away. The rights of all rational entities are supposed to be identical in any/all locations. This assumes we are talking about ideal societies of course, how things are now here in America/the world at large are completely irrelevant.

On a separate note, it would be awesome if we could put ourselves into suspended animation until a capitalist society is created instead of being forced to live in evil societies filled with 99.9999% evil people like today. 

Edited by EC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, EC said:

In other words, it feels like you're saying that capitalists shouldn't "promote" capitalism, as a future capitalist government would require the "overthrow" of a present non-capitalist government.

I've already stated what I mean by "overthrow," and I'm using the standard definition that you can google yourself. Nothing archaic or obscure. It's even used in laws against sedition. It means to forcibly remove from power. It is the opposite of a peaceful, constitutional system of change in government. I suggest reconsidering how things "feel" to you, and focus on how things actually are in reality. I won't be addressing this point again. I dislike repeating myself.

Share this post


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

I've already stated what I mean by "overthrow," and I'm using the standard definition that you can google yourself. Nothing archaic or obscure. It's even used in laws against sedition. It means to forcibly remove from power. It is the opposite of a peaceful, constitutional system of change in government. I suggest reconsidering how things "feel" to you, and focus on how things actually are in reality. I won't be addressing this point again. I dislike repeating myself. 

To me, it FEELS LIKE you think expressing a preference for a government system that doesn't involve periodical free elections to establish who runs the government (i.e. expressing a preference for a military dictatorship, a socialist revolution, a fascist totalitarian state, or for that matter a state of anarchy) constitutes sedition.

I say feel like, because you haven't even come close to accurately describing what is and what isn't sedition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nicky said:

So, with that fact in mind, do you want to answer the question: should it be a right to organize the mass migration of ideological Nazis, who's stated goal is to create a fascist, national socialist government, and then achieve racial harmony by having the government murder all non-whites, into the US?

I said I wasn't sure. It's a borderline case. I need to give it more thought and consider the relevant concerns I mentioned previously.

Right now I can address this notion that immigrants have all the same rights that citizens have. This is clearly untrue and represents an intrinsic view of rights. Rights are established objectively based on the nature of reality in relation to a particular human's context. Someone who has not earned citizenship in the U.S. (by whatever objective standard exists) has no right to participate in the government of the U.S. They have rights based on being a rational animal, but they do not have the rights which come from being a U.S. citizen.

Share this post


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

Someone who has not earned citizenship in the U.S. (by whatever objective standard exists) has no right to participate in the government of the U.S. 

Just to get ahead of this: the hypothetical Nazis in my example have not expressed any desire to illicitly participate in the government of the US...or to break any other laws on the books.

They haven't expressed the contrary, either (presumably, they were never even questioned about it, since entry is free as long as you can prove your identity and have no criminal history, it's not like they would make you pinky swear that you won't break any laws in the future when you cross the border). And some of them will start using guerrilla tactics to intimidate everyone they hate and everyone who opposes them as soon as they enter the country, but, for all we know, any one individual Nazi could simply be planning to live in peace, earn their citizenship legally, and then vote for the next Hitler, also perfectly legally. There's no proof that any specific Nazi entering the country is planning to abuse the system, and their sponsors are not expressly encouraging them to do so.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nicky said:

Just to get ahead of this: the hypothetical Nazis in my example have not expressed any desire to illicitly participate in the government of the US...or to break any other laws on the books.

Okay. So, the fundamental question, as I see it, is whether a person has the right to advocate for a constitutional transition to a form of dictatorship, specifically Nazism in this case. Agreed?

Share this post


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

Okay. So, the fundamental question, as I see it, is whether a person has the right to advocate for a constitutional transition to a form of dictatorship, specifically Nazism in this case. Agreed?

No, that's a contradiction of terms. The Constitution, if followed, does not allow for a dictatorship.

The Nazis are advocating for establishing a dictatorship by whatever means necessary. They are openly Nazis. Have you ever heard of a Nazi who follows the US Constitution? Only thing that's not happening is that individual Nazis coming into the US are not walking up to the first LEO they see to tell him they're here to commit specific illegal acts. They are smart enough (or well trained enough) to only speak about their ideology and plans in general terms.

And that is recognized as free speech in American law: you can say that you believe in the most heinous acts imaginable. You can be a member of NAMBLA (that's an organization that believes sex with per-pubescent children is moral). You can say killing cops is justified and commendable, and applaud when it happens. Etc., etc. It's all protected speech. And the Nazis take full advantage of all these precedents, and go as far as the law allows. (this is not some far fetched, theoretical scenario, btw. ... American neo-Nazis do all this already; only thing they can't do is bring in their buddies from around the globe, because the Feds have the power to deny pretty much anybody, for any reason, permission to work or settle in the US...or even so much as visit, if they're from a country that requires a visa for entry).

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nicky said:

The Nazis are advocating for establishing a dictatorship by whatever means necessary.

Not even the original Nazis did that. They rose to power within the legal system of Germany. Do you have any examples of what you're talking about?

Share this post


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

Not even the original Nazis did that. They rose to power within the legal system of Germany.

Not sure why I need to explain that the Nazis weren't scrupulous, democracy loving, law abiding gentlemen, but here's some fun facts: Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in prison... prison he was sent to after being put on trial for high treason after the so called "Beer Hall Putsch", an attempted coup d'etat, with the use of elements of the military sympathetic to the fascist cause, in 1923.

After his pardon by a fascist friendly court a year later, he followed that up with a campaign of violent street fights and rioting, and countless murders of political opponents. All this, while the Nazi Party wasn't even legally allowed to exist, on account of them trying to, you know, violently overthrow the democratically elected government a few years earlier.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Nicky said:

Okay, so just to confirm that I'm reading your answer correctly: immigration to a country for the purpose of fundamentally changing its form of government to totalitarianism is a right. In any numbers, even if it's organized and taking place in mass. Correct?

Correct. 

I mean, sure, that's their purpose, but purpose must be evaluated in terms of possibility as well. Just because a person wishes to have a form of government that is totalitarian, doesn't mean that there is a threat. If they proposed that they would use giant super soakers to take over the government because they think it will instill fear on the American populace and traumatize the congresspeople that they assault, I wouldn't rate that as a real threat. If they were casting a spell that they claim would summon Cthulhu and therefore destroy the US government, that wouldn't be a threat either. Based on your immigration example, if I'm reading it correctly, the Nazis were providing ideological material, without any apparent plan for attaining their goal, and no apparent backing by a foreign government. There wasn't anything I would call threatening (specifically, the threat of force).

And since a Nazi essentially has to talk in general and vague terms (like you suggested they would do) lest they admit intent to commit a specific illegal act, I think the threat is defanged quite well. But I might make exceptions to this idea if a group is supported by a government or other extremely large organization with substantial monetary funds. Usually mass numbers happen when there is support from a foreign government, like China tries to do with the US. 

I don't know even any historical examples where a totalitarian government came to power through democratic (nonviolent) means.

 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


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

Not sure why I need to explain that the Nazis weren't scrupulous, democracy loving, law abiding gentlemen...

Because you fail to portray history accurately. After Hitler's imprisonment, he convinced the authorities to lift the ban on his party, and the Nazis disavowed their goal to take political power by force.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


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

Because you fail to portray history accurately. After Hitler's imprisonment, he convinced the authorities to lift the ban on his party, and the Nazis disavowed their goal to take political power by force.

Whatever. So do you plan on answering the question, or do you just wanna build childish arguments about how law abiding Hitler was?

Share this post


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

I mean, sure, that's their purpose, but purpose must be evaluated in terms of possibility as well. Just because a person wishes to have a form of government that is totalitarian, doesn't mean that there is a threat. If they proposed that they would use giant super soakers to take over the government because they think it will instill fear on the American populace and traumatize the congresspeople that they assault, I wouldn't rate that as a real threat. If they were casting a spell that they claim would summon Cthulhu and therefore destroy the US government, that wouldn't be a threat either. Based on your immigration example, if I'm reading it correctly, the Nazis were providing ideological material, without any apparent plan for attaining their goal, and no apparent backing by a foreign government. There wasn't anything I would call threatening (specifically, the threat of force).

Nazis took over Germany while they were a small minority. And they only had a third of the vote, with most of that vote coming from people not actively involved in the party. Not everyone who voted for Hitler was a Nazi, they just liked him more than the weak alternatives. So 100 million Nazis and people who'd rather vote Nazi than let's say Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, WOULD realistically threaten to take over the US.

Which leads me to conclude that the reason why you're fine with letting them try is because there's no way there's enough of them willing to move to the US. If so, I tend to agree, Nazi-ism isn't a big enough phenomenon to threaten a country of 330 million.

Is that the reason? And, if so, would you change your answer if we were talking about New Zealand, instead? Because, if New Zealand opened its borders, and neo-Nazis and white nationalists across the world got it into their heads that NZ is a good place to congregate, there would be enough of them. They would be able to become a political force that would be a threat. It wouldn't even have to be massively organized. Just a naturally growing community that attracts more and more like minded people, until it's finally big enough that there's no stopping them.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nicky said:

Which leads me to conclude that the reason why you're fine with letting them try is because there's no way there's enough of them willing to move to the US.

It's definitely part of the reason, but not the main reason. It is not a sufficient or necessary condition, but more people adds more weight for concern when there already is a concern. All I really care about is if there is a plan of action, not simply hope on their part. There might be an argument to stop them in terms of visiting the country (as in, their intent is "hit and run" propaganda), but I can't see why I should call something a threat if it isn't associated with imminent violence.

4 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

After Hitler's imprisonment,

Are you seriously missing how Hitler used violence to come to power? He toned it down a little bit after being imprisoned, but it's not like he came to power and then unleashed the violence. It wasn't anti-German belief that was ever the threat, it was the constant use of violence. Hitler basically got people to ignore the law (or rather, he got the right people to ignore the law), he didn't use the law of Germany to get his way.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


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

It's definitely part of the reason, but not the main reason.  It is not a sufficient or necessary condition, but more people adds more weight for concern when there already is a concern. All I really care about is if there is a plan of action, not simply hope on their part. 

Okay, so if you lived in New Zealand, you wouldn't be in favor of the government preventing millions of Nazis and white supremacists from settling in the country?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


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

Okay, so if you lived in New Zealand, you wouldn't be in favor of the government preventing millions of Nazis and white supremacists from settling in the country?

I wouldn't. There is no plan of action even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An invasion by Nazis? Ha, about the most impossible feat imaginable. Although I realise this is all analogous, there are far bigger threats to the West, internal or extraneous, than the group: white supremacists, neo-nazis and Nazis. In my estimate, this has become a largely isolated and unpopular group that even the traditional right (in several parts) is cutting itself from. I reckon they rate about 4th, after (in no specific order) Socialists, Shariah-ists, and the China expansionists. As I hear from Lefties and far left, how is it that the diminished danger of "Nazis" have remained the go-to villains? I know in their case - to distract from and cover over the evils of Socialism, present and past.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 11:41 AM, MisterSwig said:

I've already stated what I mean by "overthrow," and I'm using the standard definition that you can google yourself. Nothing archaic or obscure. It's even used in laws against sedition. It means to forcibly remove from power. It is the opposite of a peaceful, constitutional system of change in government. I suggest reconsidering how things "feel" to you, and focus on how things actually are in reality. I won't be addressing this point again. I dislike repeating myself.

Which is why I question it. There is nothing wrong in reality with overthrowing (improper) governments (all that exist currently). And "feel" in this context means to use intuitive knowledge, and is an extremely powerful tool for analyzing reality. And lol at bitching at me as if you are superior.

Edited by EC
removed part

Share this post


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

So Iranians should have the right to vote in U.S. elections?

I knew that would be your objection to what I said. No, but I didn't mean this by rights. You know what I meant, and it wasn't  the  alternative definition that includes things like voting in local elections. But to be explicit, voting is more of a privilege of certain citizens than it is a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Are you seriously missing how Hitler used violence to come to power?

There are plenty of good books on how the Nazis gained power, including Ominous Parallels. Street-brawling with communists is not how they took power. That's partly how they became more popular. But generally people loved Hitler's philosophy. They voted for the Nazis, made them the dominant party in the Reichstag. They passed the Enabling Act, giving Hitler dictatorial powers. Citizens were free to leave the country up until WW2. Very few left. In the end, Hitler didn't need to use violence. He was a brilliant speaker and wooed the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I wouldn't. There is no plan of action even.

Just to be clear, because I'm having trouble believing what you're saying: if people who openly subscribe to Nazi ideology started pouring into New Zealand (and you lived there), you wouldn't be in favor of the government halting the migration at any point? Not at one million, not at three million, not even at five million? As long as they're not part of an organized invasion, they're just regular migrants who happen to subscribe to Nazi ideology, you would not want it stopped? You would rather allow Nazis to become the majority in the country you live in, than break with this belief you're clinging to that borders should always be open to non-criminal civilians? 

Do you understand that you would be executed within a year of them gaining majority, simply for being an Objectivist?

Share this post


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

There are plenty of good books on how the Nazis gained power, including Ominous Parallels. Street-brawling with communists is not how they took power. That's partly how they became more popular. But generally people loved Hitler's philosophy. They voted for the Nazis, made them the dominant party in the Reichstag. They passed the Enabling Act, giving Hitler dictatorial powers. Citizens were free to leave the country up until WW2. Very few left. In the end, Hitler didn't need to use violence. He was a brilliant speaker and wooed the masses.

This is an (valid) argument against representational democracies which should all cease to exist. It's not an argument for the prohibition of the overthrow of improper governments. If a group developed vastly superior technology relative to the current status quo while promoting a promoting a switch to a proper (capitalist) government it would be the greatest travesty of justice in the history of mankind if they didn't use their vastly superior technology to overthrow every current government in existence and institute a proper one. No improper government has the right to exist nor does it have the right to outlaw it's own overthrow for a proper government.

It's only because of the context that people don't possess this superior tech that it is proper to simply try to slowly change current governments such that they don't martyr themselves to a system that is impossible to change quickly NOT because sedition laws are valid in a vacuum.

 

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...