Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Cogito

  • Birthday 05/09/1990

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Cogito 101010
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New York, NY, USA

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
  • School or University
    Baruch College
  • Occupation
    Undergraduate Student

Cogito's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. Just FYI: I dropped out of the OAC at the end of last semester due to having too busy a schedule, before LL was even completed. That being said, had I not dropped out then I would have certainly dropped out by now due to this mess.
  2. This question reflects a fundamental misconception of the concept "energy". Energy is a property, specifically a capacity. It is not an entity, a thing, a material, etc. Energy does not "interact" with matter, matter HAS energy.
  3. Quotes from that article: "With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services." So should we also block people from having kids unless they can prove they have a high education? This isn't immigrant-specific. "Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion)." With the exception of prison and courts (which would not be as costly if it weren't for the drug war), these are all examples of welfare. More importantly, they aren't immigrant specific. Should we ban new children because we have a public school system, or should we get rid of the public school system? "Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them." So it's not even the immigrants, its the Americans. Overall, all this document proves is that the government takes more from the higher income-earners and gives more to the lower income-earners. It demonstrates nothing specific to immigration. The fact is, a large portion of current citizens also get more from government than they put in, but that's not an excuse for curtailing their rights. This is an argument for dismantling the welfare state, not curtailing immigration. Immigrants have no moral obligation to have a certain minimum stolen from them by the government, nor are they to blame for the fact that the government spends money on them. Violating the rights of the immigrant doesn't help anyone.
  4. How do "illegals" (a term I don't like to use) drain resources without being on welfare? No one has said anything about citizenship, at least not that I've seen. Refraining from impeding movement and allowing people to vote are very different things. We have a huge influx of people making demands on those services without immigration: birth. Does it make sense to use force to stop that particular influx? You shouldn't have to prove anything about supporting yourself to immigrate. If someone is willing to let you stay on their property or willing to sell you property, you should be allowed to go to that property. I've already stipulated that criminal/health checks might be necessary.
  5. Sorry if I haven't been clear here. To state my position clearly: The government has a right to set up border checks if they are deemed necessary for the protection of individual rights. If a particular area (let's say Mexico, though I don't know the specifics to say if it's a good example) is overridden with crime and disease, then the government could make a determination that it's necessary to screen those coming in for diseases or known criminal status. However, if those screens don't catch anything, people should be let through. Moreover, such a border check isn't always necessary: the Canada-US border would probably not require pre-emptive checks. The determination of whether or not a particular area needs border checks is highly contextual, particularly dependent on how much work the government would have to do to catch all the criminals it doesn't screen. In the case of Canada, I'd be shocked to hear the claim that criminal Canadians would stream into the US. In the case of Mexico, perhaps such a border is needed.
  6. Yes, but I don't think it's always necessary. I grant that, in some cases (maybe the Mexican border is such a case), criminal activity is so rampant (or a disease is so widespread) that mandatory screening could be enforced. But such a system wouldn't be necessary at, say, the Canada-US border.
  7. So why isn't a background check of all entrants into New Jersey from New York necessary? There are criminals and diseased folks in New York. I've already conceded that it may be necessary in certain particularly bad areas to have such a border check, but why everywhere? Yes, but those trucks are often driven over public roads. Now, if the roads were privately owned then you could call that trespass, but as it is it's just a driver using the "public" resource (owned by everyone and therefore no one). Moreover, this ignores the fact that many immigrants come over by plane and are still subject to absurd controls. It is not true that someone's rights are violated every time immigrants come to this country. It is true that every time ANYONE, immigrant or not, goes on welfare they are violating rights. See my post here: previous post This argument justifies nearly any action. Hey, you have a right to go down to the welfare office and open fire on everyone there, since, hey, what's "fair" for them is "unfair" for you, and it is your self-interest to do so since they're participating in a situation which involves violation of your rights. If you can violate the rights of someone because they MIGHT join a welfare program, then you certainly can because they HAVE already done so, right?
  8. Ok, fair enough. This is a political discussion, so I assumed you meant "wrong" in the sense of "shouldn't be allowed". Sorry for jumping to conclusions. Edit: Given the fact that your post was about moral, and not legal, issues, I would take it a step further. For rational, productive folks, it's more than just "nothing wrong" for them to immigrate to a freer place: It is heroic and commendable.
  9. And if the foreigners do wish to preach racist/discriminatory doctrines? By what right do you get to decide what ideas a man has to accept before being unhindered in his travel over land that is not yours?
  10. Quick distinction: For a governmental entity, a border defines jurisdiction: The area over which that particular governmental entity has the right to use retaliatory force in order to protect individual rights. For a private entity, a border defines ownership: The area over which the property owner has the right to set all terms of behaviour, interaction, etc. I think this issue stems from a conflation of these two types of borders.
  11. No one is claiming that it needs to be financially free. Immigrants who fly here should have to pay the airlines, etc. We're claiming that it should be free of government intervention, which is a very separate issue. Yes, it is currently handled by the government and it is currently very costly. That's our problem! It doesn't need to be! At the very most (and I'm not convinced even this is necessary), immigration would involve a border check running names and faces against databases of known criminals and a blood test screening for known diseases. I can see an argument that the immigrant should pay for such a screening, but that's far different from the ridiculous quota systems and legal barriers in place today. The solution is to fight to have everyone's rights fully protected, not to violate the rights of foreigners just because ours are being violated as well. See my previous post in this thread for a discussion of this type of claim. I'm fairly certain that no one here is claiming that immigrants should have a right to trespass on private property. Those that do so should be properly punished. But many immigrants do not trespass to come cross the border. Those who pay for flights to the US are not trespassing. Those who hide in the back of trucks with the permission of the truck owner are not trespassing.
  12. This argument is flawed on three grounds: 1. Laws enacted under Clinton restrict the type of welfare available to immigrants. 2. It punishes all would-be immigrants for the potential future actions of a sub-set thereof. 3. Nothing about it is limited to immigrants. By your logic, we should limit childbirth too since some of those children could end up on welfare. We should limit inter-state migration because some migrants might end up on welfare programs. If we have a right to limit the movement, living conditions, and working conditions of foreigners because they might take illegitimate money, then we have a right to limit the movement, living conditions, and working conditions of locals as well. You have every right to be angry at immigrants who come here and end up on welfare, but only for the same reasons you have a right to be angry at citizens who end up on welfare. The solution is to end welfare, not restrict immigration.
  13. I'm not sure this is necessarily the case. All of these issues apply to inter-state boundaries (criminals, contagious folks, and terrorists are bad and should be kept out), but a border patrol isn't necessary. If there was a particluarly crime-ridden area, like some claim is the case for Mexico, I could see an argument being made for having a border patrol around it, but there's no need for a border guard along, for example, the Canada-US border. Not everyone would need to check in.
  14. Ah, yes! Thank you. Of course it was Kendall.
  15. Ok, let's take a real-life example. My good friend Rory wants to immigrate to the US. The airlines are willing to sell him a ticket, I am willing to pick him up from the airport, I am willing to allow him to sleep on my couch and share my food, my boss is willing to offer him a job, I am willing to drive him to and from work, the bank is willing to allow him to open an account, and my apartment complex is willing to rent him an apartment once he has enough money. Should he be stopped from doing all of these? Under current immigration law, he cannot. At what point in the above chain would Rory be violating someone's rights? This case is similar to a large portion of immigrants (legal or illegal) and would-be immigrants. People come across the Mexican border, find somewhere to stay, find someone willing to hire them, save up money and spend it in open, willing transactions. By what right do you claim you can stop them from doing so? Do you own the United States? Nations qua groups do not have rights. People have rights. You have a right not to have to interact with people with communicable diseases, so if someone's disease is threatening you you have a right to have them held away from you, possibly in quarantine if the disease is bad enough. It doesn't matter if that person was born in Mexico or in Wisconsin. Similarly, those with criminal backgrounds legitimately have limited rights, and one of those restrictions might legitimately include limited movement across borders. Such people should be stopped, but it should not be assumed that everyone crossing a border is a criminal. Again, there are criminals in the state next to you just as there are criminals in the country next to you, and it doesn't matter where they come from. Finally, known terrorists should be targeted militarily regardless of where they live or come from. No one is saying we should let criminals run roughshod over us. Let's apply your argument to states: Does the people of New Jersey have a right to avoid people with communicable diseases, criminals, and terrorists? Yes, absolutely. Are there criminals, people with communicable diseases, and terrorists in New York? Absolutely. Do there need to be quotas, lengthy screening processes, border guards, etc. making entry from NY to NJ harder? No. Those with diseases can be quarantined, criminals and terrorists can be pursued, and in many cases people can be extradited back to their original states. The same can apply to countries. But I'll even grant you that it might make sense to have a border check, due to the scale of crime/illness abroad. That check would properly only screen for illnesses and known criminals, and let all else in, though.
  • Create New...