Illegal Immigration & Objectivism

[DavidV]

We'll take as many computer engineers as they can send our way.

Actually, no "we" don't. See http://tired-immigrant.blogspot.com/

[aequalsa]

The folks who are trying to convince us that immigration of poor people is a big problem are just not interested in solving it in a rational and just manner. Some of them are fearful of jobs being taken away, others of culture being eroded.

I guess I am the "folks" you speak of so I ought to clarify some things. For the record, I am an employer in construction amd not an employee, so I could benefit more from cheap labor then most. So to answer the indirect barb, I have no concern that I might loose my job. And regarding loosing my culture, I'm an atheistic objectivist american with nihilistic parents. I have no 'culture' to loose. I don't advocate closed borders. Just marines all along it with a couple single file lines. Reform is well and good and I am interested to hear the relatively simple solution you speak of. Mine is to end socialism. Not sure where the problem is with that-maybe you'll tell me. I don't have any particular love for the US. Our government may not be as bad as most since they only control 35% of the gdp instead of 50 or 75, but it's bad enough that it shouldn't warrant much love. So truly, you'll find no jingoistic pride here. I am honestly just looking at the numbers. I get the impression you want wide open borders for people who demonstably use more government resources then they pay in taxes. No one anywhere but here on this list and perhaps in mexico disagrees with these numbers. Do a search on the cost of illegal immigration. You'll get literally millions of links. My only point is that to advocate for the inclusion of people who you do not know that are costing you money is an act of altruism. One I'm not willing to back.

[aequalsa]

"Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and most other public benefits."

Technically you are mostly right. What you may not realize is how extensive ID fraud is. I refer here to one of my earlier posts on the issue. This is of course my own first hand experience and as far as I know, not well documented so you can take it as you like. I know that it exists and that it's rampant. So I also know that the costs that are documented are much lower then the real cost. Fake Social and Fake ID's will get you plenty of stuff. Further, emergency rooms take all cases regardless of ability to pay or national origin. So does prison. So even if you deny all of the fraud I have witnessed, costs still exist.

"People come to the USA because there's litte socialism here - they come here exclusively to work (look up statistics on illegal immigrants employment rate). "

Exclusively? Common. How many people in mexican neighborhoods on border states have you met that you can make an assessment like this? I've met literally thousands, and I can tell you for sure that they don't come here exclusively for that reason. I will grant that work is a motivation for most. However, that in no way signifies that that is the only reason, or that they don't collect government money in addition to work. I also agree that france is worse. They absolutly are, but the fact that it's worse elsewhere doesn't justify allowing the problem to progress here.

"Not true - I don't know why would you want to move to Europe in the first place, but if you wanted to, you'd have very little trouble obtaining work permit, especially coming from the USA. It's the other way around that's almost impossible to accomplish."

I shouldn't have said Europe as my research was only into ireland. The research I did made it seem that it was very difficult to work there coming from the US. An employer to sponser you has to verify that no one in ireland can do the job and he has to import someone to do it. There is a process of adds in news papers and significant government fees the employer must pay. It seemed difficult and unlikely from what I gathered. Perhaps I shouldn't have extrapolated to the rest of Europe. I did so thinking they would be similiar, being part of the EU. My apologies for misrepresenting the case if i am mistaken.

"Newsflash - it's been done in the US for decades. Read up on H1-B visas. That's pretty much the only legal way (other than marriage), that you can eventually become a citizen."

This is excellent to hear....now if we could just get them to enforce it...we would have a much more sustainable socialism

[softwareNerd]

I guess I am the "folks" you speak of so I ought to clarify some things.

No, I did not mean that as a barb -- I did not mean that you were one of the people putting immigration on the agenda. I apologize if that was how it came across.

I was referring to the media and the politicians who have raised this issue to being near the top of the agenda.

I doubt I'm going to convince you about immigration -- that's rare after going to and fro to this extent -- and I figure that's fine with both of us.

I would like to discuss the "rule of law" issue in more depth. I think, however, that it is best to do that in a different thread, and lay down a rule that immigration cannot be used as an example there.

[aequalsa]

Fair enough....I lay down my sword *cling*

[hunterrose]

I would like to discuss the "rule of law" issue in more depth. I think, however, that it is best to do that in a different thread, and lay down a rule that immigration cannot be used as an example there.

Sounds good (though I wouldn't think immigration has to be excluded in order to focus on the wider rule o' law question.) I started to make the topic myself, but you have those neato post-transferring powers, and might want to include some of the posts from this topic

In the US, or other Western country with a relatively fair legal system, you should work within the system to appeal your conviction and prove your innocence. If you are in a corrupt or dictatorial country with no chance of fair treatment, I think it would be moral to escape if possible.

• How do you define relatively fair?
  
• What is moral if one cannot escape the dictatorial country, should they uphold that country's law i.e. is it legit to violate unjust law X in Dictatorland, but not legit to violate that same unjust law X in America?
  

Why work within the system? Because what is important is not just your innocence, but that your innocence can be demonstrated by some open and objective process. If everyone just does what they think is right, and ignores the objective legal system, the result is anarchy (even if each person's judgement is in fact rational).

But as softwareNerd said,

If so, breaking an immoral law does not lead to generalized anarchy in practice.

it seems highly questionable that disobeying an unjust law will affect whether other people disobey unrelated laws.

[Lathanar]

I just had a huge debate about this at an objectivist society meeting and was surprised that some actually wanted to legislate in the wall. To me, it all came down to whether the immigration quota system is moral or not. Yes, they are breaking the law. But from a lot of case law I've seen, regulations are usually shot down when someone is held liable for breaking one, and then filing suit saying they were morally right and the law is unfair and encroaches on their rights. To me, if we're looking at the constitution and how the general US right now views the nation's moral responsibility to tell the rest of the world they are wrong, we stand by everyone is equal no matter race, religion, gender, or nationality, etc. If quotas for hiring practices with minorities are unconstitutional, what are quotas for immigration. Could a case be brought that might challenge the quota system. If you do away with those limits, then the immigrants that wish to work and be citizens will enter the system correctly, and those outside the system will truly be illegal.

[softwareNerd]

I started to make the topic [on "Rule of Law"] myself, ..

A search turned up this old thread that examines the issue of "rule of law" in great detail.

[Rob Bradley]

The suggestion that discrimitory immigration laws are immoral might hold some water in an Objectivist World. Otherwise it is the garden variety, vain piety that aquires virtue second hand, via the sacrifices of others; only the ethical frauduence could contrive to portray such restrictions as immoral. Nihistic moral inversion at its best.

But it is not an Objectivist World. All were not admitted into Galt's Gulch and, while the US is no Objectivist Utopia, all should not be admitted into this country either. The idea that no judgement or standard be observed with regard to this is pure treason against the only hope this world has of any Objectivist values persisting, the United States.

And on top of this we have the profoundly racist philosphy of the immigrants spear-heading this movement. Chants of "La Raza" reveal them to be racists and morally bankrupt. It is the exact same thing as chanting "White Power". Frankly, the IMAO satirical peice that any illegal alien waving their nation's flag is an invader breaching our sovreignity and should be shot on sight is not far from a rational response. They are proud of the socialist, canabistic, superstitious, sexist and hateful culture that impoverished them in the first place.

We should be wary of those seeking entry into this nation. For instance, Chechen terrorist seeking to impose a Islamnic state should not be granted asylum, merely due to his refugee status. Mexican family should not be able to import their elderly and abandon them to the welfare system, even if the welfare system, like minimum wage, is immoral in the first place. An open door policy is the same as unilateral disarmament; treason comitted by those whos moral resolution is narcistic, intricist, and downright inverted.

The bizzaro thing is that we really do not need any new legislative initiatives, just enforce what is already on the books. This knod and wink approach to immigration issues is the core problem here. We will make a law for political gain and not enforce it as a practical matter. The chickens of pragmatism have come home to roost.

Tossing the rule of law out the window because evil minimium wage laws make it too expensive to have someone mow your lawn or clean your house is the same kind of pragmatism.

[DavidOdden]

The suggestion that discrimitory immigration laws are immoral might hold some water in an Objectivist World. Otherwise it is the garden variety, vain piety that aquires virtue second hand, via the sacrifices of others; only the ethical frauduence could contrive to portray such restrictions as immoral. Nihistic moral inversion at its best.

No, indeed the conclusion that I have no right to employ Jorge Patel or rent an apartment to him because he was not born in the US and has not received approval from a subjectivist government agency that operates according to no discernable rational principles, is ethical fraud. You have the right to not hire or rent to any non-citizen or even citizen that you take a disliking to -- that's your business. It is not your right to prohibit me from dealing with a person who I want to deal with professionally or personally.

The idea that no judgement or standard be observed with regard to this is pure treason against the only hope this world has of any Objectivist values persisting, the United States.

This argument is entirely irrelevant, since it has been made abundantly clear that a person who initiates force against others is a criminal who should be excluded from civilized society.

And on top of this we have the profoundly racist philosphy of the immigrants spear-heading this movement.

But we also have the profoundly racist "White Power" opposition to allowing foreigners into this country. The existence of idiots on either side of the debate does not collectively invalidate the merit of the arguments -- the arguments stand or fall on their own merits. So far, you have presented no valid arguments for immigration restrictions; you have yet to identify a valid basis for any restrictions (though of course I've given you the one valid basis, so you may feel free to turn that into a proposal for an anti-foreigner position).

For instance, Chechen terrorist seeking to impose a Islamnic state should not be granted asylum, merely due to his refugee status. Mexican family should not be able to import their elderly and abandon them to the welfare system, even if the welfare system, like minimum wage, is immoral in the first place. An open door policy is the same as unilateral disarmament; treason comitted by those whos moral resolution is narcistic, intricist, and downright inverted.

You're engaging in intrinsicism and collectivism. If you have concrete evidence that a particular Chechen is a terrorist seeking to attack America, that is a valid reason to jail them; but you may be surprised to learn that not all Chechens are terrorists or Islamists. You may also be surprised to learn that many Mexicans, Salvadorans, Hondurans blah blah blah are actualy interested in working for a living here, and that they are not seeking a welfare handout. If some Mexican thinks of the US as a slacker's socialist paradise where money is handed out freely, that is their mistake. Thousands of Indians correctly see the US as the land of opportunity -- a land where they will be free to pursue their rational goals and make as much profit as they can, to live the best life possible. Do you see that as a personal threat to your existence?Rather than wasting your time on denouncing foreigners, you should be denouncing the welfare state that is a legal entitlement of US citizens.

The bizzaro thing is that we really do not need any new legislative initiatives, just enforce what is already on the books.

Quite wrong: that would prevent millions of people who have a legitimate right to come to the US in order to work from actually doing so. The legislative initiative we need is, simply, to limit the rules that restrict foreigners from entering the US and staying to work. That would instantly eliminate this "problem", by making their immigration legal. The only valid basis for preventing a person from coming to America is proof that they intend to initiate force. Picking beans or working in a Taco Bell is not initiation of force.

Tossing the rule of law out the window because evil minimium wage laws make it too expensive to have someone mow your lawn or clean your house is the same kind of pragmatism.

BTW, in Objectivism, the practical is the moral. Moral principles in Objectivism are validated with reference to how they serve the rational purpose of the individual -- one's own life. Immigration restrictions and wage laws are both immoral and impractical. Surely you can put the pieces together. Worship of "the rule of law" is base intrinsicism: there is no rational intrinsic reason to obey laws. When there is an objective reason to do so -- because laws protect the rights of man -- then they should be obeyed. The laws against free movement into the US are blatantly evil, irrational, impractical and immoral, and their existence makes a mockery of the concept law.

[Lathanar]

The suggestion that discrimitory immigration laws are immoral might hold some water in an Objectivist World. Otherwise it is the garden variety, vain piety that aquires virtue second hand, via the sacrifices of others; only the ethical frauduence could contrive to portray such restrictions as immoral. Nihistic moral inversion at its best.

How, might I ask, would something that would be moral in an "Objectivist World" not be moral in the real world?

I constantly hear arguments that these immigrants coming over are possible terrorists, trying to take over our culture, trying to take back land view as stolen, intent on using our welfare system, yadda yadda yadda. I ask you how a quota system addresses and fixes any of these concerns? We let these people in anyways. I hate to break it to you, but a large portion of those out on the streets chanting "La Raza" are already in the system as legals. We even have a 'green card lottery' where 50,000 immigrants every year are randomly chosen to receive a green card. How does this kind of law satisfy your concerns about who we're letting in? The current discrimination in the immigration laws and the proposed legislations are what has given force and numbers to the Raza movement which is nothing new, they've been around since the 60's. When we let people into the country we don't care about their morality, what their actual motives are, only that a number has or hasn't been met. That is where I see the irrationality in the immigration law and why it needs to be changed. I'm not throwing out rule of law, I want the law changed.

[aleph_0]

My take on this has always been, I don't care what the law is in my personal life--I am not going to bind myself or others by laws that shouldn't exist in the first place. BUT, the only predictable, consistent code of action for the government is to enforce the laws on the books. So, whenever personal right and wrong government co-exist, there is an inherent contradiction. The person should, if it is profitable (or if not, when exercising civil disobedience), disobey the law but the government should still enforce it when and if it can. The resulting conflict, if it indeed is a conflict of natural rights, should be resolved by legislation.

[softwareNerd]

The person should, if it is profitable (or if not, when exercising civil disobedience), disobey the law but the government should still enforce it when and if it can.

How does this work in practice if, say, the law disallows homosexuality? The implication is that the government should prosecute homosexuals until the law is overturned. I can understand what that means to a person who is part of government, e.g. a cop; and, for argument's sake, I say: fair enough to say the government official may not pick and choose.

How do others use this as a guide to action? For one thing they vote to change the law. That's fair enough too.

However, what if the only law being put forward is tougher enforcement of checks for homosexuality. Would it then be right to vote for that law or against it?

[aleph_0]

I thought about the proper actions of government agents, though superficially. When I tried to formulate an answer, it didn't work. Even government agents ought to protest bad laws, but only elected representatives should do it from within the system. For instance, by trying to pass laws that reverse current ones. Judges and such officials should not attempt to legislate from the bench and, if they protest, should do it by leaving their office and performing civil disobedience. Inconsistent application of law could cause too much uncertainty.

[DavidOdden]

Even government agents ought to protest bad laws, but only elected representatives should do it from within the system.

Why do you say this? What is it about being elected that validates the creation or modification of a law?

[softwareNerd]

... government agents, ...

I mentioned them as a plausible exception. I'd really be interested in your answer to the part of my question about the "general public". Other than asking their legislators to change the law, should they also be asking their legislators to be more vigorous in enforcing the very law that they wish changed?

... what if the only law being put forward is tougher enforcement of checks for homosexuality. Would it then be right to vote for that law or against it?

[aleph_0]

Dave, elected officials are those in most direct contact with the people whom the laws affect and, if there is a problem in the laws, these are going to be the people who most sense it since they will be the ones affected by it. That is why the Congress was initially split: One body of elected representatives to enact the will of the people, on body of unelected people to restrain that will with reason. This is ideal if it can be structured to actually work, so that we will have all the laws that we should and none of the laws we shouldn't. Unfortunately, Senators are now elected officials and no longer try to represent the rational restraint that it once was supposed to.

In any case, that is why elected officials, if they are to protest, should do it within the system whereas others should not. We entrust unelected officials with veto power, elected representatives with the power to make law. If unelected officials, as a rule, start making law contrary to the will of the people, it would undermine the ability of elected officials to do the same. If judges, taking up the laws passed by Congress, were to interpret law where it doesn't actually exist and ignore law where it does, it would destroy the efficacy of the Congress to pass any laws in the interest of the people. Not that this is a harm in and of itself, but I know of no better way to ensure capitalism than a strictly bound constitutional democracy with checks and balances so construed.

softwareNerd, no, since I concede that even elected officials should attempt to disobey unjust law, the people and the government officials should also oppose any measure that would allow officials to better enforce unjust laws.

[Lathanar]

The resulting conflict, if it indeed is a conflict of natural rights, should be resolved by legislation.

No, I do not see this as being the case at all. It is the courts job to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. You should not rely on Congress to police itself.

[aleph_0]

I'm not saying that it should. If a law is unconstitutional then yes, judges are supposed to strike it down. That's not legislating from the bench. But the constitution does not guarantee all human rights, like the right to property, and it should not legislate such things from its unelected position. If judges want to protest, they should resign.

[DavidOdden]

Dave, elected officials are those in most direct contact with the people whom the laws affect and, if there is a problem in the laws, these are going to be the people who most sense it since they will be the ones affected by it.

There's a problem there, though, that the populace isn't, at least presently, operating on a particularly rational basis -- a lot of people want something for nothing, or at least something at someone else's expense. (Just listen to the whiners on the news when the question of gas prices comes up -- all you hear is "this is ridicuous" and "they have to do something about this"). They operation at a fairly emotional level, and they don't understand the concepts of "long term" and "principle". Judges, on the other hand, so. Judges get to see the problem very regularly -- much more regularly than ordinary citizens -- because accused rights violators are taken before a judge for judgment and punishment, so I think judges have a good idea of what the facts are in terms of crime (which is really what government is about). Plus, because of their training, they are able to see the underlying principles and can better mesh "justice" and "law". In particular, I think they are good at recognisine "This statute is just clearly poorly worded, nobody could possibly have intended this as the way the law is supposed to be". Narrow literalists like Scalia hold that the Constitution isn't really supposed to protect individual rights, which in a certain sense is right, that is, the words don't explicitly guarantee a right to property. The reason that isn't stated is because is was implicit in the legal context in which the Constitution was written. If we were France, you would expect explicit enumeration of your rights, but we're America, where for better or worse the legal system works on the basis of wise and fair judges depending on this implicit system of tradition where of course you have a right to property and you don't need to make it explicit. Or, so it seemed back then.

The point is that as a simple matter of fact, judges do have the traditional legal right and power to "make law", within limits. We could try to become France, but we aren't France, yet.

[aleph_0]

Perfectly correct, Dave, which is the use of the Senate (or at least it should be--right now the machinery is out of whack). They are supposed to veto the proposals that are emotional and irrational, while still being in touch with the voting population enough to represent them. Judges, on the other hand, are so far removed from that and are typically so conservative, I don't think they would make for good legislators. Also, in doing so, you remove the electorate almost entirely and create an insulated governing organization.

[softwareNerd]

I thought of an good example of people (other than illegal immigrants) who routinely break a particular law, yet where it does not lead them to break other laws.

While getting quotes on a lawn-sprinkler system, I had one contractor turn down my business because of an extra meter that I wanted installed. He said it was too much hassle dealing with the city and county. A little checking with colleagues at work and with neighbours revealed that quite a few people make "improvements" to their homes without getting the required paper-work. I'm astounded by the proportion. I'd hazard a guess that if one takes homes that are 15 or more years old, one will find at least one illegal "improvement" (i.e. one that was done without all the right paperwork) in a majority of them.

Yet, unless many of my colleagues and neighbours are living double-lives, they aren't doing routinely criminal things. Indeed, I doubt most of them are breaking any legitimate laws at all.

Every time a resident does not go get a permit for an improvement, they end up not paying the permit fee. Also, improvements not known to the city do not raise the taxable value of the property. Thus, those who can get away with it also end up paying lower property taxes than they would if they followed the law.

All this is not to suggest that my neighbours are even a little evil just because they do not follow the law as I do. I was just struck by the analogy to the rule-of-law thesis surrounding the immigration debate. One can use many of the same arguments: letting them get away without city permits encourages law-breaking, next thing we know they'll become burglars; they pay less taxes this way, putting the burden on law-abiding folk like me; many of the most blatant violators are from a poorer segment of society where they already pay less taxes than I do; it is impractical to ask cities to roll back permitting-rules, so we must ask fro strong enforcement; if we find violators, we ought not to fine them -- that would be an amnesty -- but, should destroy the improvements they have made to their homes.

Again, I'm not advocating stronger enforcement, just pointing out the analogy. I hope the so-called "minutemen" have all their permits up-to-date!

[JMeganSnow]

I know this is kind of an aside, but my understanding is that respecting the rule of law means not going out and purposely breaking laws and flaunting it just because the government does some things you don't like. It means if I get pulled over and given a speeding ticket I don't shoot the policeman and start a high-speed chase that covers three counties and leaves a trail of wrecked cars and dead bodies. Since there's little value in making myself a martyr over something so tiny (not to mention hurting a bunch of other people to no end), I just go and pay the ticket and continue to vocally advocate the repeal of speed limits.

In other words, I don't advocate bloody revolution except as a last resort, because my love for peace and respect for even a flawed instrument of protection is greater than my need to blow up over every little thing. It means that I obey laws that I consider immoral only to the extent that I can't get away with violating them when they impinge on my chosen lifestyle.

Edit: As for how this applies to illegal immigrants: if they can figure out a way to contravene the immoral law and get away with it, more power to them. I applaud their ingenuity and success in the face of adversity. Frankly, I'm sorry they have to live in fear of possibly getting caught. However if their method of contravening the law consists of assaulting the border cops with machine guns, THEN they've crossed the line from "lawbreaker" to "criminal".

The problem is simply that in any situation where you have a mixture of controls and freedoms every issue contains a crapload of gray area and sometimes issues come down to sitting there with individual cases and tweezing apart the strands of good and evil like some kind of moral Crime Scene Investigator. You might come up with a general principle of how you will go about discerning the good/bad of each situation, but you can't come up with a blanket "everyone who violates this immoral law is a bad person" or "violating this immoral law is a good act" without context.

[softwareNerd]

However if their method of contravening the law consists of assaulting the border cops with machine guns, THEN they've crossed the line from "lawbreaker" to "criminal".

I agree, with respect to US immigration.

The blatant contravention of the rule-of-law also becomes a problem when it creates a large group of criminal facilitators. Recently, studying the history of the 1920s, I've been convinced that the common notion that prohibition encouraged gangsterism has merit.

[OwenKellogg]

Illegal Immigration wouldn't even be an issue if America didn't have so many socialist programs and laws. The major problem that rises with immigration is that they get welfare and they work for cheap. Because they work for so cheap they get hired instead of American's who can't compete because it's against the law for them work for less than minimum wage. The problem isn't illegal immigration itself, it's too large of a government spending too much on illegal immigrants who don't pay into the system.