Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
MisterSwig

Immigration restrictions

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, nakulanb said:

Shouldn't any free man be granted entrance to the USA and simply sworn to be a law abiding citizen?

If there is evidence that he believes in violating rights, then no.

Share this post


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

If there is evidence that he believes in violating rights, then no.

What would that evidence look like?  If a person was violent as a youth and served a sentence for it, but has since then reformed and been released, he is then given another chance to be a law abiding citizen.

If this same man was from another country and wanted to enter the USA, he should simply have to be sworn in and held to the laws of the land.

It is the only objective way to go about immigration law.

 

Share this post


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

Like evidence of a socialist activist. Did you read the thread?

It looks like ARI agrees with me.  I read most of the first page, 9 pages is a big commitment.  I know, it can be redundant when I don't read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nakulanb said:

I read most of the first page, 9 pages is a big commitment.  I know, it can be redundant when I don't read.

It was a long discussion, and I didn't sort out my position until this post on the fourth page. I don't characterize my position as "open" or "closed" immigration. I'm for border control based on the protection of the individual rights of Americans.

I don't think ARI understands its critics on this issue. For example, Ghate said in his interview with Brook that their Objectivist opponents are concerned with stopping the decline of Western culture, and this is why they reject open immigration. Yet the immigration debate, for me, is not about protecting Western culture. It's about protecting the individual rights of American citizens, which should be our government's job. And so I'm sympathetic to arguments based on a citizen's right to hire foreign workers, for example. He has that right, but not at the expense of proper border control. On the other hand, I'm not sympathetic to arguments based on a foreigner's "right" to travel across international borders (Mexico to USA) as if they were walking across interstate borders (California to Nevada). This is a truly absurd position that has been sufficiently addressed by non-Objectivists and Objectivists alike. I see no need to address it here. I'm more interested in debating Objectivists who accept the need for border control, but disagree on the need for ideological screening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 3:37 PM, 2046 said:

What about domestic citizens that have anti-American beliefs? Shall we afford them the opportunity to attend our reeducation camps or shall we just deport them with the migrants? And what if I live in California, but only have anti-Nevadan beliefs, shall I be permitted residence in California, but not travel to Nevada?

 

Who DOESN'T have anti-Nevadan beliefs from time to time, really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 5:40 PM, 2046 said:

How are they to provide this "screening?" A standardized test? Can't the subject just answer "I love America" even if they held anti-American beliefs?

Not if we asked the right questions.

The fact that all knowledge is interconnected means that we can probe someone's ideas about X by asking them about something relevant to X (say "how do you feel about Capitalism" instead of "how do you feel about America"). Granted, it's not foolproof (since a semi-competent terrorist could probably see the connection between America and Capitalism and just extend their lie) but a sophisticated enough question should reveal the true beliefs of almost anybody.

If you were screening for Marxists, for example, you wouldn't ask what they think of Marx; you'd ask how we should punish those who COULD help others but choose not to. And since it's a much more comprehensive philosophy, screening for Islamism would be much easier than for Marxism.

 

I know that doesn't refute your main point, in and of itself. It's just something I wanted to mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 11:02 AM, MisterSwig said:

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

Is voting a right?

 

Incidentally, I feel very uncomfortable with this "sedition" thing.

If someone were to try to kill our government for the sake of a proper alternative, and did their absolute best to minimize the collateral damage as much as possible, I cannot think of how that action would be immoral (regardless of its consequences). I'm not sure we should lock someone up for attempting to overthrow tyranny, let alone for just talking about it. Isn't that exactly what our founding fathers were doing?

To quote the Last of the Mohicans: "if it is sedition then I am guilty of sedition too".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2019 at 7:27 AM, Nicky said:

Here's a question, might be relevant to the thread: let's say someone formed the International Nazi Party in South America. This movement then started recruiting like minded, white South Americans, putting them on buses, and bringing them up into the US, for the stated purpose of spreading national socialism in America (this includes promoting antisemitic laws, government imposed segregation and overall fascist control of society, an eventual takeover of America's military might and a global Final Solution).

Is this within their rights? Why or why not?

I'm not sure. In principle, it should be, but to then be morally obligated to stand by and effectively let yourself be conquered feels very off. It has a very non-Egoistic (specifically Kantian) flavor which suggests to me that we oughta check some premises.

Yaron Brook has said "immigration should be easy and citizenship should be hard", that suffrage isn't actually a human right and that we should be much more selective about who's allowed to vote. I haven't finished working this all out yet, but it occurs to me that not allowing immigrants to vote would instantly de-fang the Nazis.

 

Also, Godwin got here early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 7:24 PM, 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. If so, I tend to agree, Nazi-ism isn't a big enough phenomenon to threaten a country of 330 million.

 

You know, there are Islamist groups in the real world who're having some success with the exact strategy you've described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:
On 1/15/2019 at 9:02 AM, MisterSwig said:

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

Is voting a right?

It is according to the 26th amendment, which is why I was asking EC about his usage of the word with that extreme example. In the end, I think we agreed that voting is a privilege.

4 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Incidentally, I feel very uncomfortable with this "sedition" thing...

A tyranny should respect a person's right to incite rebellion? Why would a tyranny care about your rights? The only case in which laws against sedition make sense is under a free nation that respects rights, because sedition would then mean inciting rebellion against freedom and rights. Of course, in a mixed system, sedition is a tricky problem, because the rebel might be against the tyrannical aspects of government, not the rights-respecting ones, in which case he must accept that he's at war, and there are no rules in war.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


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

A tyranny should respect a person's right to incite rebellion? Why would a tyranny care about your rights?

It wouldn't (by definition) but that wouldn't change anything about my rights, themselves. I have them whether or not anyone on Earth knows it. Anyone who is rational will care about that; the rest should not be our concern.

5 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

The only case in which laws against sedition make sense is under a free nation that respects rights

That's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 9:57 PM, EC said:

When I make these type of weak assertions I assume if the reader isn't up-to-date on what's slightly over the scientific horizon, that they can use Google for concepts like telomere, DNA, and nanobot-based repair, mind upload to the cloud, synthetic bodies, etc.

You really shouldn't do that. As of page 4 (which is as far as I've read so far) you and I seem to be the only commenters who've done any real digging into transhumanism. Most people just don't spend much of their time thinking about it.

 

Also, I'm really not sure about some of the claims you've made (primarily regarding AI). I won't unpack everything here because it really belongs in its own thread, but if anyone wants to start that I'd be happy to elaborate there.

 

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.

I believe he's mainly talking about curing senescence (the aging process) so there's no hard cap on anyone's potential lifespan. It wouldn't mean invincibility; we would still need to eat (and thus to work) and avoid getting hit by trucks, but we wouldn't have to worry about eventually growing old. Considering that our "average lifespan" across the world would still remain some finite number anyway (because of things like trucks) I'm pretty sure Rand's ethics would still apply.

There are other problems with what he's proposing (which I won't get into here) but that isn't one of them.

 

On 1/23/2019 at 9:49 AM, Nicky said:

My question is about what should be done given THE FACTS. So, first accept the facts, then answer the question. If you can do that.

Holy Hell, dude. We can wait a bit if you need to go get your tampon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2019 at 7:04 PM, Eiuol said:

Beliefs don't necessarily include actions, but these sort of questions are asking about actions.

In a democracy, the government regularly polls the population about their beliefs and acts according to the results of that poll. Of course, your belief by itself doesn't constitute action but a government is going to survey your opinion and is going to act on it using force (even if you dislike that). In a democracy, beliefs and opinions become law (because there exists legal machinery that converts belief to law).

Of course, the actions are carried out by the government (based on people's beliefs), so the people should not be blamed, punished or "screened" for it.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


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

Yaron Brook has said "immigration should be easy and citizenship should be hard"

So people would become permanent foreigners in their own country? Would they always be considered foreign nationals? Sure, they don't need to vote, but why can't people become members of nations they immigrate to?

(A citizen is a member of a nation and is entitled to protection of their rights by the nation's government. If citizenship should be hard for immigrants, aren't immigrants entitled to have their rights protected by that nation's government? What exactly does "citizenship should be hard" mean?)

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


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

So people would become permanent foreigners in their own country? Would they always be considered foreign nationals? Sure, they don't need to vote, but why can't people become members of nations they immigrate to?

(A citizen is a member of a nation and is entitled to protection of their rights by the nation's government. If citizenship should be hard for immigrants, aren't immigrants entitled to have their rights protected by that nation's government? What exactly does "citizenship should be hard" mean?)

I've the same doubts. Perhaps Yaron has got himself in quite a muddle: While I hear him say that anyone has the (inherent) right to sneak into a country (the USA) - but now, apparently, citizenship, voting rights, etc. - - will be more difficult and take longer...Is that his meaning?

In this way the person stays in limbo awaiting his full rights while living in the country. At this stage, is he not enjoying the identical rights as the nation's citizens?

I'd think a partial answer is to do away with this intrinsicism and ensuing contradictions - instead, every aspiring immigrant (before entry) applies and - expedited within a reasonably brief and known period - gets his/her immigration and full citizenship all in one go.  Or, occasionally doesn't.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2019 at 5:13 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

*Cough* Poland *Cough*

:P

 

Um? I don't get the video, satirical as it may be. ;)  I wondered where is there a contemporary "Nazi" country capable of invading a modern "Poland"?

Share this post


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

(A citizen is a member of a nation and is entitled to protection of their rights by the nation's government. If citizenship should be hard for immigrants, aren't immigrants entitled to have their rights protected by that nation's government? What exactly does "citizenship should be hard" mean?)

Citizenship is a type of relationship or association. Just because we may associate with someone in one area of life, doesn't mean we want to associate with them in all areas. Or sometimes not at all.

Share this post


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

Citizenship is a type of relationship or association.

I guess to expand on this more concretely, citizenship could include things like voting rights, positive obligations in exchange for that (voluntary taxation perhaps), simplification of attaining official documents, being permitted to run for office, but really anything up to your creativity. Sure, all people would have their rights protected, but its not hard to think of privileges granted by citizenship that don't have to do with rights per se. So if citizenship is hard, that would mean earning it (through a test for example) should require a thoughtful engagement with that country's government. 

I would think actually that more expansive definitions and requirements of citizenship would reduce the concern for immigration restrictions. I don't even think politics on the fringe like Nazis and could reach a threatening level unless it's granted specific political privileges. 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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, whYNOT said:
On 8/31/2019 at 10:13 AM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

*Cough* Poland *Cough*

:P

 

Um? I don't get the video, satirical as it may be. ;)  I wondered where is there a contemporary "Nazi" country capable of invading a modern "Poland"?

I know. I was just being funny. The video was more for the unnecessarily heated argument about precisely how and why Hitler came to power.

I mean, when I get around to the "open Objectivism" thread, that's gonna be pretty intense. Which makes sense; as much as I disagree with those who think it's "closed" I absolutely understand why they get so passionate about it. But over a minor tangent about the extent to which Hitler needed to use force to come to power? Really, guys?

 

18 hours ago, human_murda said:

So people would become permanent foreigners in their own country? Would they always be considered foreign nationals? Sure, they don't need to vote, but why can't people become members of nations they immigrate to?

I'm pretty sure voting was his main point. It'd be pretty weird for the police to respond to any emergency by first checking everyone's citizenship or something; I've never heard him hint at anything like that, and I wouldn't agree if he did. And as long as they're legally entitled to use our courts and policemen (but not our ballot boxes) I don't think it really matters whether they're technically considered "foreign Nationals" or not.

 

On 8/25/2019 at 10:49 AM, MisterSwig said:

I'm more interested in debating Objectivists who accept the need for border control, but disagree on the need for ideological screening. 

Well, as others have already pointed out so well, what you're really trying to get at are "seditious beliefs" (regardless of whether they're held by immigrants or natives). I don't agree with you about it (I actually think the "thought crime" characterization was pretty apt) but it'd take much more than one post for me to lay out all my reasoning. It's a big question and it probably deserves its own thread.

I will mention, however, that I know exactly what you meant about it being "too late" and "perhaps the socialists have too much power already". I feel that way too sometimes. What I find so ironic is that in those times when I start feeling that - that's specifically when I get seditious.

But I don't really believe we're there yet. If I did, we'd be having a very different kind of conversation.

PS.

The Democratic candidate in 2020 (as stupid and socialistic as he of course has to be) has the slogan MATH: Make America Think Harder. So cheer the Hell up!

PPS: And he's gonna absolutely annihilate Trump.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
PostScript

Share this post


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

And as long as they're legally entitled to use our courts and policemen (but not our ballot boxes) I don't think it really matters whether they're technically considered "foreign Nationals" or not

But that's exactly what citizenship means: that they come under the country's legal system. It's not just semantics, that's the definition of citizenship. If you're not a citizen of a country (or part of their visa system), then that country's government has no legal obligation to protect your rights. Being legally entitled to a country's court system and not being a citizen/national are contradictory ideas.

 

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

It'd be pretty weird for the police to respond to any emergency by first checking everyone's citizenship or something

Of course, the police may accidentally protect your rights, but accidental rights are worse than the worst legal systems currently existing in the world. Enforcement of rights are not possible without citizenship. Citizenship determines which government enforces your rights. Having no citizenship means having no government to enforce your rights.

 

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I'm pretty sure voting was his main point.

Then why take away citizenship? Sure, in most countries citizenship automatically qualifies you for voting, but what's the point of taking away all legal rights, just so that you can be disqualified from voting. Citizenship and voting rights are two completely separate things. Citizenship is what entitles you to any possible rights by a particular government. If you're not a citizen, then legally, you have no rights. Citizenship usually qualifies you for voting, but getting rid of citizenship just to disqualify people from voting is absurd.

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...