Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Immigration In A Purely Capitalist Society

Rate this topic


AshRyan

Recommended Posts

Stories like this always make me angry. I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't allow people trying to escape from countries like Communist Cuba to stay in the United States. I regarded our government's actions during the Elian Gonzales situation to be morally evil.

The usual reasoning given for why we should restrict immigration with limits on numbers of immigrants per country (which vary from country to country), etc., is that "they" (foreigners) steal jobs from Americans. This kind of reasoning is clearly fallacious. If there were a static number of jobs so that everyone was in direct competition for them, such that for the addition of each person in the country there would be one less job available to go around, then one could argue against having children on the same grounds (and Communist China-style laws limiting family size would be the next logical step). So people who are against allowing immigrants to come into the U.S. on those grounds should also be against families (at least beyond a certain size) on the same grounds.

Such immigration laws (immigration caps, the "wet foot, dry foot" rule for Cubans, etc.) usually seem completely random and arbitrary.

That said, I think that there probably are legitimate reasons for some immigration laws. For example, there's another Caribbean country (I think Haiti) from which we have banned immigration, due to widespread disease problems among their population. Seeing as how spreading diseases (in cases in which it's preventable) is an infringement of a person's rights, I think it is legitimate for the government to limit immigration in these kinds of cases (although, of course, the treatment of diseases should be left to the private sector).

So what do you think? Should a government restrict immigration, and if so, under what circumstances?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stories like that anger me as well. Instead of those Cubans being able to escape a brutal dictatorship, we have sent them back to a murderous regime which will most likely either put them in jail, torture, or execute them.

Another possible line of reasoning among those who support restrictions on immigration could be that the government wants to restrict the flow of potential criminals coming from countries which have a much larger criminal population. Many conservatives argue for example that there are countless numbers of criminals entering into the United States illegaly who are then committing crimes. These conservatives argue that if we clamp down on illegal immigration, we will prevent the number of criminals entering the United States, and thus, reduce crime in the United States.

This seems to be a complicated issue. While there does seem to be some merit to this argument, there are also major problems with it as well. The major problem comes from those conservatives who want to severely restrict immigration from certain countries, not based on the individual criminal records of every immigration applicant but rather certain statistics about the population of the country from which the applicant is coming from, such as crime rate, poverty level, etc.

This is clearly a violation of individual rights, in the sense that it assumes an individual is guilty until proven innocent based on the fact that they come from a certain country with a high crime rate.

This being said however, I think it would be reasonable for the government to put certain conditions on legal immigration into our country. Unlike what many modern conservatives want to do however, these conditions would have to be based on an objective line of reasoning, rather than the personal moralities of government officials.

An example of such a possible condition could deal with every individual's prior criminal record. If a given individual has committed a certain number of misdemeanor crimes or committed a felony, perhaps they would either not be able to enter our country or or there would be some amount of restriction on it. (Keep in mind this is just a potential example, if objective conditions on immigration are even possible). Some problems I forsee with such a policy would be that it would require a large government agency to oversee such policies, and the country from which an applicant comes from might not have an objective law court system, therefore, its judgments would be invalid and not be useful to these immigration conditions.

While the argument that we should keep immigrants out of our country because of their stealing jobs is ridiculous, I would see it as important for our government to attempt to keep criminals out of our country. However, at what point would doing so be considered assuming an individual guilty before proven innocent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stories like that anger me as well.  Instead of those Cubans being able to escape a brutal dictatorship, we have sent them back to a murderous regime which will most likely either put them in jail, torture, or execute them.

But we make Cuba promise not to kill them before we send them back. :rolleyes: (That face rolling its eyes shouldn't be smiling.)

Regarding the issue of trying to stop criminals from getting into the country, that doesn't seem to be a real problem. Real criminals, say mafia families, probably have no trouble getting into the country anyway. It's mostly poor workers who can't come (not to champion the poor or anything, but...), especially from a country like Mexico. The vast majority of immigrants, even if they came here illegally, are otherwise upstanding, productive citizens (well, not "citizens" really, but you know what I mean)--just as are the majority of people born in the United States. And the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" should absolutely be upheld even in regard to immigration policies.

If the government wants to reserve the right to perform a background check on an immigrant, I see no problem with that. But to refuse people entrance just because we've set an arbitrary cap on the number of immigrants we'll allow seems completely pointless to me.

And if someone is trying to get out of communist Cuba, that, in my book, is already a mark in their favor (beyond simply presuming them innocent to begin with).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh. That's a tough one!

Why would you accept in the US someone who doesn't agree/respect the principles of the US? I mean, people should agree to respect the law (in spirit and letter), but that only happens with citizenship.

I know a lot of Romanians, a bunch of collectivist mama's boys :-), which emigrated to the US hoping to get a free lunch, and they got it. Most people will want to emigrate to the US for the standard of living, even if they are 100% against the principles that generated that wealth.

I suggest that a simple 3-part admission test is implemented: profession, ideology and health history. The point beeing to weed out welfare hunters, religious fundamentalists and contagious people (TB is raging in some parts of Russia)

Unfortunatelly, the US is yet to clearly state its ideology, the Jeffersonian ideology, in my view.

To give you an extreme example, if someone comes to the US saying they intent to fight for the instauration of an Islamic state, and they have no respect for individual rights, why would you receive him? (He's innocent, but his intections are clear).

I intent to emigrate to the US as soon as I can. As a Java/J2EE programmer, I need to wait for the job market to improve, and maybe extend my Resume here, and finish my studies at the University, but as soon as it's viable, I'm there.

Unfortunatelly, because of such hilarious endeavours like the Visa Lottery (!!!!) and other idiots trying to get a free lunch, the rules for emigration are very high. I just hope that my professional status will help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lot of problems with that, namely, creating a government established ideology and forbidding those who do not follow it to enter the country. In America, you are free to have whatever opinion you want, as bad as it may be, as long as you do not violate the rights of others. Forbidding people who have "bad" ideologies into the country would be a gross violation of individual rights. Also, whose standard would this good ideology be based on?

Your position in this issue seems to me to be in grand violation of the principle of individual rights. In a free society, an individual is innocent until proven guilty, and they are guilty only when they ACT on certain bad ideas by violating the rights of others. When we start to throw people in jail and exclude people from coming here becuase of their ideas, we will have become a totalitarian state.

As undesirable as it may be to have people such as welfare hunters and religious fundamentalists in our country, it is NOT the place of government to decide who is "desirable" and who is "undesirable."

In a free society, those people that you speak of looking for a free lunch would certainly not find it. It is only in the mixed economy that we live in today where such people have the ability to be parasites on others through the government.

Also, a person's profession has absolutely NOTHING to do with the the proper purpose of a government: the protection of individual rights. Should the government accept certain professions and not others depending on the economic conditions of the country? That is statism my friend.

As to disease, the treatment of disease in our country should be a COMPLETELY PRIVATE endeavor.

You really need to check your premises in this issue Gabriel. What you advocated in your last post has a lot of collectivst and statist elements to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Anne Frank arrrived in the Americas before she was killed by the Germans. Who and many will be killed out of this group 0f 531 that would have been something?

The U.S. Coast Guard yesterday began repatriating Haitian refugees directly back to their strife-torn island nation, turning over 531 rescued from 13 boats in the Windward Passage to the Haitian coast guard in Port-au-Prince.

    Homeland Security spokesman William Strassberger said the repatriation was being conducted in coordination with Haitian authorities. He said the refugees had been detained at sea, aboard three Coast Guard cutters since Feb. 21.

    "It is our intention, upon rescuing Haitian migrants from peril at sea aboard grossly overloaded and unseaworthy vessels, to immediately repatriate them in a safe and secure manner," said Rear Adm. Harvey Johnson, commandant of the 7th Coast Guard District.

    "While we have seen a recent surge in migrants from Haiti, at this time there are no indicators of a mass migration," Adm. Johnson said.

    Coast Guard officials said that while Haitian refugees are being discovered in

the Windward Passage since armed revolt erupted Feb. 5 in that Caribbean nation, the number pales in comparison to the early 1990s — when Coast Guard cutters sometimes came across as many as 3,000 refugees in a single day.

    While leaders of Miami's Haitian-American community and the Congressional Black Caucus have demanded that President Bush allow Haitians temporary protective status until problems are resolved in Haiti, Mr. Bush has repeated the government's stand that any Haitian migrants trying to reach U.S. shores would be turned back.

  "I have made it abundantly clear to the Coast Guard that we will turn back any refugee that attempts to reach our shores. That message needs to be very clear as well to the Haitian people," Mr. Bush said earlier this week. "We will have a robust presence with an effective strategy, and so we strongly encourage the Haitian people to stay home as we work to effect a peaceful solution to this problem."

Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AshRyan

That said, I think that there probably are legitimate reasons for some immigration laws. For example, there's another Caribbean country (I think Haiti) from which we have banned immigration, due to widespread disease problems among their population. Seeing as how spreading diseases (in cases in which it's preventable) is an infringement of a person's rights, I think it is legitimate for the government to limit immigration in these kinds of cases (although, of course, the treatment of diseases should be left to the private sector).

AIDS is the only disease (of major concern) that some Haitians have. But for one to get AIDS one would have to have intercourse with a Haitian or some sort of blood transfusion. If an American wants to be intimate with a Haitian unprotected then that is his right (no infringements of rights here). From what you wrote above one would have thought that Haitians have some kind of skin disease that was highly contagious. Clearly from all evidence this is not the case. Must the government also ban interstate travel if one State has a higher incidence of a particular disease? To be honest I find the last paragraph of your post to be lacking.

I agree with the rest of your post though AshAyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gabriel

I suggest that a simple 3-part admission test is implemented: profession, ideology and health history. The point being to weed out welfare hunters, religious fundamentalists and contagious people (TB is raging in some parts of Russia)

Unfortunatelly, the US is yet to clearly state its ideology, the Jeffersonian ideology, in my view.

As far as I am concerned I could be a committed Marxist and still give lip service to capitalism and a constitutional republic. In that regard an ideology test would be of little use since it would be highly ineffective. Who decides what ideology is wanted in a prospective immigrant? Do they have to support the welfare system, affirmative action, faith-based initatives, anti-abortion laws and the like? Again, this strikes me (an ideology test) as being a dubious goal. I recall a time when Soviet spies used to train to be "perfect Americans" this was the case while today a simple immigrant only needs to parrot some phrases in order to pass the test you proposed (I presume).

You said, "weed out religious fundamentalist", care to expand on what you mean? The American constitution makes freedom of worship a right that is to be protected. This means that it would not be obliged to stop someone from entering the states simply because they took the Koran, the bible or the Gita literally. Not all fundamentalists are prone to violence although they can be said to be highly irrational.

With regard to "contagious people" I think there are measures already in place to deal with this likely problem. I think that the contagious disease consideration is most important in the immigration law debates. But then again liberty does not guarantee one a utopia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AIDS is the only disease (of major concern) that some Haitians have. But for one to get AIDS one would have to have intercourse with a Haitian or some sort of blood transfusion. If an American wants to be intimate with a Haitian unprotected then that is his right (no infringements of rights here). From what you wrote above one would have thought that Haitians have some kind of skin disease that was highly contagious. Clearly from all evidence this is not the case. Must the government also ban interstate travel if one State has a higher incidence of a particular disease? To be honest I find the last paragraph of your post to be lacking.

Yes, you're right. That wasn't a particularly good example to use, I should have checked my facts before using it. HIV isn't an airborne virus, and if an AIDS epidemic is the reason for our immigration ban from a certain country, that would not properly be any of the government's business. Thanks for the correction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest heusdens
Stories like this always make me angry.  I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't allow people trying to escape from countries like Communist Cuba to stay in the United States.  I regarded our government's actions during the Elian Gonzales situation to be morally evil.

If your intend is to allow immigrants from Cuba, then why does the US government not allow legal migration from Cuba?

Illegal migration from Cuba to the US is a high risk, and should not be stimulated in any way. As far as I know Cuba does not disallow their citizins to migrate legally to any country, yet they do discourage illegal migration, because of the intrinsic dangers.

And btw. why should Cubans be dealt with differently then migrants from any other country? Are Haitians better off then Cubans? Think not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justifying migration laws on the basis of the nanny state requires you to justify on the same basis complete government control of your life - of course the government knows better than you where you will be most productive, the best house for you, the best spouse for you, who should raise your children, the best time for you to die and not strain the social security system, the social security system as the best way to use your income, the best safety practices re crossing the street, how many stories buildings have, and on and on .... in short, everything.

Cubans who want to flee Cuba know the risks and are perfectly aware that the benefits more than justify the risks. Why do you think living under tyrannical oppression is necessarily preferable to attempting a dangerous escape or rebellion, or even suicide - and how can you impose your heirarchy of values on another like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

In the thread Illegal Immigration & Objectivism, we have discussed the issue of immigration as it pertains to the present-day United States--and with it, the innumerable concrete-bound side questions, such as whether illegal immigrants are "good for" a mixed economy, whether being a net beneficiary of taxation amounts to theft, whether unjust laws are to be obeyed, whether it is technologically feasible to detect a nuclear bomb being sailed towards a port of New York City, and so on. What we haven't addressed is the much more relevant question of immigration in the ideal society--a society without any unjust laws or any form of taxation, and with a completely UNmixed economy.

(Why is it more relevant, you ask? First, because we have as little influence on the immigration bureaucracy of the present-day United States as we have on the other aspects of the Federal government; if we ever get to define the laws of any nation, there will be no mixed economy in that nation, will there? So we might as well author our immigration laws--or our ban on immigration laws--under the assumption that we have also authored the other laws. Furthermore, once we have formulated our principles on immigration, the only thing we'll have to do is to apply them to the matter at hand.)

My position is as follows:

Every individual has a right to his life, and consequently a right to property, liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness. To secure these rights from those who would violate them, rational men will establish governments among themselves. As all interactions among rational men, such an establishment of government will occur with the unanimous consent of all parties involved: All those who establish the government and agree to be governed by it, and all those who subsequently place themselves under the government--i.e. those who immigrate--will have agreed to the constitution of the government, which defines the purpose of the government and the manner in which the government is to follow that purpose.

The government is thus created by a number of individuals delegating aspects of their self-defense to it. As any good book on management will tell you, an act of delegating a task always involves a delegation of the authority required to perform that task; it is thus that a just government gains its authority.

Now, the exact authorities that the governed delegate to the government is up to the governed. If, for some reason, all those who wrote and placed themselves under the constitution agreed that the government should be authorized to regulate the color of lollipops, they will all be bound to restrict themselves to making red lollipops if that is how the government legislates. However, if the government exceeds its constitutional authority and makes laws it has not been authorized to make, then the governed are free to disobey those laws, as long as they do not violate the rights of innocent individuals.

Furthermore, the government cannot rightfully enforce any "lollipop laws" on the people who have been born within the government's territory but have not explicitly agreed to the constitution. Since these people have not delegated any authority to the government, they retain full authority over their lives. (But the government is free to prosecute them if they violate the rights of innocent individuals, or course.)

Now, rational people will certainly not authorize their government to decide on the color of their lollipops, as that decision has nothing to do with the government's purpose of protecting the rights of the governed. However, rational people may well authorize their government to decide what kind of visitors the governed are allowed to welcome on their properties, or to employ in their businesses. Why? Because the survival of a rational nation qua rational nation is only ensured if irrational people are kept away from it.

If the purpose of the government is to protect the governed from those who would initiate force against them, ensuring that the latter stay away from the former has a LOT to do with the purpose of the government. A well-written constitution and a set of objective laws will do little to defend you if you are surrounded by swarms of despots, thugs, and sheeple--therefore, ensuring that both you and your fellow citizens deny entry to those kind of people is an essential part of effectively defending your rights. Having a law to this effect is a way of ascertaining that it will not only be you, but also all your fellow citizens, that do so.

So, while there will not be laws on lollipops in a rational nation, there will in all probability be laws on immigration, aimed at letting rational people IN while keeping irrational people OUT.

Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, while there will not be laws on lollipops in a rational nation, there will in all probability be laws on immigration, aimed at letting rational people IN while keeping irrational people OUT.

Your thoughts?

One additional observation. In a free society, the government is an instrument created and used by citizens to protect their rights. In a very real sense, the government is the property of the citizens. And just as with other forms of property, non-owners cannot appropriate it and use it without the consent of the owners.

It would be obviously absurd, for example, for a Canadian province to unilaterally declare itself part of the United States, and thus to assign to the U.S. government the task of protecting the rights of people living in said province. Extending the responsibility of the government in such a way requires the consent of its current owners in some form; in that case it would probably be some sort of annexation procedure.

But if a non-citizen can't unilaterally require the U.S. government to protect his rights by declaration, why should he be able to do so unilaterally through geographic movement? This is where the root sanction for, if not immigration at least naturalization law comes from.

(Another reductio on totally open immigration: imagine a group of a hundred thousand communists with guns gathered on the other side of the U.S./Mexican border. They all say they want to enter the country. They claim to be peaceful. We can't reject them for being communist because a free society allows freedom of belief. We can't reject them for being armed, because a free society protects the right to keep and bear arms. So we have to let the invading army into the nation without resistance, and only act if they start committing crimes inside our jurisdiction. The obvious absurdity of such a conclusion suggests that governments can reasonably restrict immigration for the purpose of protecting the rights of its citizens.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we haven't addressed is the much more relevant question of immigration in the ideal society--a society without any unjust laws or any form of taxation, and with a completely UNmixed economy.

That is not true. I addressed that issue several times.

As all interactions among rational men, such an establishment of government will occur with the unanimous consent of all parties involved
Huh? Where did you get that notion from? Even if 99% of the population did not want a rights-respecting government, you would still have a moral right to form a proper Objectivist government without their consent.

there will in all probability be laws on immigration, aimed at letting rational people IN while keeping irrational people OUT.

So people who believe in god will not be allowed into the country? Since when did rationality become a legal requirement? You might want to consider a somewhat more specific criteria, something, perhaps, related to the violation of individual rights. A criminal, for instance, would be a prima facie cause for rejection, but a man who believed in god would not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To khaight: Excellent observations!

To Stephen:

That is not true. I addressed that issue several times.

I stand corrected. What I meant to say is that we did not address the issue in sufficient depth, and the posts that deal with the issue are buried in between the ones that debate the side questions. Hence my initiative to have a dedicated for this more fundamental and more relevant issue.

Huh? Where did you get that notion from? Even if 99% of the population did not want a rights-respecting government, you would still have a moral right to form a proper Objectivist government without their consent.
By "all parties involved," I meant all the people who participate in the act establishing the government.

So people who believe in god will not be allowed into the country? Since when did rationality become a legal requirement?

The point I have been making is that there would be two kinds of laws: Those which prohibit the initiation of force for anyone in the country, and those which define a minimal set of criteria for deciding whether or not to welcome a person on one's property for those who have voluntarily placed their land under the authority of said government.

To ex_banana-eater: Please read the post before responding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I have been making is that there would be two kinds of laws: Those which prohibit the initiation of force for anyone in the country, and those which define a minimal set of criteria for deciding whether or not to welcome a person on one's property for those who have voluntarily placed their land under the authority of said government.

I read this three times, and cannot make any sense out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm ... before you answer the question of immigration, shouldn't one first question its basic political premise?

Why is there a need to "tag" citizens at all in an ideal society? The only reasons I can think of is taxation, welfare programs, and identification in the legal system.

If taxation is voluntary in an ideal society, then there would be no need to keep tabs on who earned what. And government welfare programs wouldn't exist in an ideal society. So a government's usage of these "tags" would be very limited. I'd probably write that into its constitution if I had the opportunity.

The only legitimate function of this "tag" would be to identify those going through its legal system in order to better protect its law-abiding citizens. This number would be limited to use for that purpose only. I think it would fall to the responsibility of the states to maintain a directory system in order to remove central power from the federal government, even though the federal gov't would have access to it.

It is practically impossible to keep out illegal immigrants unless you're an island nation with huge bureaucratic barriers -- but those countries (i.e., Cuba) usually have a problem with illegal emmigration, not the other way around. For example, the largest flaw in US immigration policy is that it is incredably difficult to gain citizenship here. Thus it's easier to be an illegal than to go through years of bureaucratic processes. To prevent this problem in an ideal society, immigration would have to be a fairly simple process. A general knowledge of a country's political process and laws would be necessary, as well as a new identification. A person's civil/criminal records from one's nation of origin should also be considered. But considering that most nations have some insane laws, it should be a selective record of offenses illegal in one's new residence in the ideal nation -- so offenses like political crimes would not be held against a potential immigrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All those who establish the government and agree to be governed by it, and all those who subsequently place themselves under the government--i.e. those who immigrate--will have agreed to the constitution of the government, which defines the purpose of the government and the manner in which the government is to follow that purpose.

I agree completely with the immigration policy outlined in the above quote. This is, of course, the very definition of the legal immigrant. After all, no one could live in the Valley unless he took the Oath (Had to throw an Atlas reference in there :P )

Can you imagine someone sneaking in and camping out behind Francisco's cabin? They would toss him out so fast...

I do see a weakness in your initial essay in that the children of the Founders are not bound by the constitution. Thus, in 120 years, say, no one is bound. Perhaps at 18 everyone should be given a choice - agree, or leave to seek life elsewhere?

So we have established that agreement to abide by the constitution of this ideal land is a prerequisite of legal immigration. Does this consider that a failure to abide by the constitution by an immigrant would lead to expulsion? I would believe also (and this may be more controversial) that the number of immigrants may have to be limited. This is because there is a finite amount of available land and resources, so that another entrant may substantially reduce the ability of the established citizens to their lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Could 3 million people live in that little Valley? There wouldn't be room even for food production. Would otherwise worthy people have to be kept out?

So here's what I think is a fundamental question: Given the fact that the Objectivist Nation cannot be of infinite size, would or should there be a mechanism restricting immigration based on other policies than simple agreement to abide by the Constitution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is there a need to "tag" citizens at all in an ideal society?  The only reasons I can think of is taxation, welfare programs, and identification in the legal system.

There are additional considerations having to do with the operations of government and law which I can best illustrate with what happened to me when I "immigrated" to California from New York.

When I became a citizen of California, I had to certify than I wasn't bringing in any Mediterranean fruit flies, set up a legal residence here, wait six months before I could register to vote, be here a year before I could run for an elected state office, get a California "pink slip" (property title) for our car, register my business name with the California Department of Corporations before my California bank would cash my business checks, etc.

Ideally, immigrating to the US wouldn't be much harder than immigrating from one state to another, but there would still be legal procedures to go through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To ex_banana-eater: Please read the post before responding.

Sorry, can you please clarify this for me then. Since limiting immigration and access to labour is clearly a regulatory economical force effecting both the internal citizens of the Objectivist country, and those outside, are you in favour of regulatory force against the people in this "proper" country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is there a need to "tag" citizens at all in an ideal society?  The only reasons I can think of is taxation, welfare programs, and identification in the legal system.

Don't forget the right to vote.

The only legitimate function of this "tag" would be to identify those going through its legal system in order to better protect its law-abiding citizens.  This number would be limited to use for that purpose only.
When you say "number," do you have something like a social security number in mind? That wouldn't be necessary at all; a simple certificate of citizenship (or a visa for non-citizen immigrants) will do.

It is practically impossible to keep out illegal immigrants unless you're an island nation with huge bureaucratic barriers

The illegal immigrant will have to stay somewhere, work somewhere, open a bank account, drive around (don't forget that all roads are privately owned!) etc. If the people he comes into contact with begin suspecting him, they may ask him to produce his documents as a condition of doing business with him. So he may enter illegally, but chances are he will not survive very long!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do see a weakness in your initial essay in that the children of the Founders are not bound by the constitution. Thus, in 120 years, say, no one is bound.

Unless they subscribe to the constitution, the children will not become citizens, and thus they will not be allowed to vote or serve on juries--so the more rational among them will be interested in subscribing to the constitution and becoming citizens.

As for the less rational among them, well it's a good thing they don't become voting citizens. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...