stephenmallory

This position probably comes from the core belief that innnocence is man's natural state and guilt an abberation. That, when deciding the structure of a government, the innocence of in the individual is the side to lean towards when devising rules and procedures. The government must always be willing to protect the rights of it's citizens (including wrongly-convicted criminals) but must be very rigid and meticulous when proceeding to take away those rights. The Double Jeapordy provision exists to restrain the government, and like any restraint on the government, it carries with it the risk that an actually evil person will escape justice. It can be thought of as a kind of agreed-upon deal with evil the purpose of which is to mitigate an even greater evil than the random criminal escaping justice: a government with the power to violate an individual's rights continuously and to hold him in legal jeapordy in perpetuity in the government's quest to discover and present such incontrovertible evidence.

It's tempting, after reading the reports about the Iranian President's caustic welcome at Columbia University today and the comments of many public figures, to conclude that moral clarity still exists in this country. However, it's important to remember that the mere fact that this man is still considered capable of being persuaded by reasoned debate shows just how confused our culture really is. Ahmadinejad is just as guilty as any member of Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Iraqi insurgency that he finances and deserves to be approached in exactly the same way. The fact that he is still alive should only be the result of a calculated decision that killing him is not in our immediate self interest. At the very least, he should not, under any circumstances, be allowed on American soil. Contrary to the understanding and dialouge that his visit was designed to create and disregarding the opportunity for political hacks to score points with America's heartland it presented, what his visit really accomplished was yet another demonstration to the Islamic world of just how much of a "paper tiger" America really is.

This isn't in the same vein as the other posts thusfar, but since it is on this website, it does qualify. It's from the Random Quotes section on the homepage: [socialists and anarchists] are the stench today in the nostrils of all honest men and women. They are a poison; and I would have them go and colonize and live out their theories and eat one another up; for they produce nothing and they subsist as suckers on what honest men, frugal and industrious, produce.--John D. Rockfeller While certainly true, this isn't entirely accurate. Rockefeller was actually referring to the "Muckrackers" - the anti-capitalist journalists and intellectuals who spent their time denouncing Rockefeller and his fellow tycoons. The Paul Krugmans, Noam Chomskys, and Jon Stewarts of their day. People like Ida Tarbell, John Reed, and Upton Sinclair. As a show of credibility I actually used to have this very quote in my old OO.net handle, ggdwill. I put it up there almost immediately after I came across it in Ron Chernow's Rockefeller biography "Titan".

I know Objectivists still do. That's because they know that evil is impotent - that it can only succeed by permission of the the victim. Any Republican who honestly understands (as you explained it) and opposes this measure (and they aren't many - virtually all Repubs are committed altruists just like Dems) and refuses to use his power to oppose it is himself his own form of crusading irrationalist. He believes in the power and the inevitability of destruction and will do whatever he can to have it spare him. This usually means throwing good people to the wolves. If a thunderstorm were approaching and your windows were open, would you spend your time panicking about a way to avert its course or pleading with it to spare you? Or would you just close your windows? Coincidentally, I listened to Yaron Brook's 2006 speech "Why Conservatives Are Anti-Business" this morning which addresses this very topic. It's the most crystal clear explanation of this issue that I am aware of.

What about if your goals are truncated by factors beyond your control? That is, you have a rational understanding of yourself and your potential, but also of the society in which you live. Knowing that you will never be able to achieve them in a lasting, secure, or unadulterated sense, you conciously choose lesser values, cultivate an authentic appreciation and contentment with them, and simultaneously repress the knowledge that you're being short-changed. This scenario certainly seems like a candidate for being happy, but I'm not convinced it is. It is possible to successfully treat the man-made as the metaphysical? And if you fail and you're still unhappy, is it some pessimistic disposition that prevents you from making A into non-A?

I don't know alot specifically about the Holocaust, but I do know alot about the Third Reich in general. Knowing those things would serve as a good bridge between the philosophical roots of the NSDAP (as explained in The Ominous Parallels) and their ultimate expression (the Holocaust). The two most authoritative books on this period in history would have have to be: "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L. Shreirer (sp?) and "Adolf Hitler" by John Toland Obviously, reading Mein Kampf would help too. As a seperate issue, this topic has sparked a question within me. I made the statement "...their ultimate expression (the Holocaust)." purely on faith. I am not actually sure if it was their ultimate expression. There was a practical, political, economic rationalization for exterminating the Jews. In the overall context of German culture at that time, it wasn't just killing for the sake of killing - although it certainly did attract the complete sadistic nihilists at the levels of management and execution of the Holocaust itself. To the average German however, completely desensitized to the value of individual human life, it was just another social experiment (to rid humanity of selfishness) that was no different than their fantastic experiment of the military superiority of the Aryan Race. So, wouldn't the plain fact that Germany elected an obvious maniac as their dictatorial head of state, allowed him to incite and perpetuate a military conquest that was proven impossible to achieve just 20 years earlier, embark on a plan to exterminate of one of the most productive and valuable segments of it's population, and then suffered the virtual suicide of their entire nation as a result of all of this be the true expression of the nihilistic base of Nazism? Perhaps I just united a bunch of particulars into a concept that has no meaning and no reality apart from it's constituent elements. I suppose my only point is that the Holocaust, while certainly one of the more despicable acts of Nazi Germany, was not any more an expression of self-hatred and a demonstration of self-destruction than was anything else they did. In fact, purely from the stand point of self-preservation, it wasn't the most dangerous thing they did. The Russians and the Allies would have destroyed them regardless of any anti-Semitism.

Usually, when I Google something, a link to Wikipedia is on the first page of results. Unless it is a subject which Wikipedia has proven to be accurate about and that I know presents the information in the best-organized manner (such as baseball information; there are quite a few others), I make a concious effort to avoid clicking on it first. On the other hand, Wikipedia is generally the best organized, although inherently least reliable source of encyclopedic information on the web, and so I find myself increasingly going to it when my search through "the horse's mouth" is frustrated. I've noticed that many Wikipedia pages feature descriptions that are verbatim copies of the text found on the non-Wikipedia page I just looked at.

DavidOdden, Your post resurrected the point of my first "at bat" that I so clearly had in mind until I started typing. You present a list of current laws that would become contractual restraints in the free market. I think you're absolutely correct - my only qualification would be that, given the nonegalitarian nature of the free market - many of those contractual stipulations (most notably speed limits) would be significantly changed to accomodate the people who could actually afford to use the roads and their generally higher skill level in driving. Living in the suburbs, I can personally attest to many instances of well-built, well-lighted, well-maintained, and relatively lightly traveled roads have speed limits that are 20 or 30 MPH lower than what, at least I in my vechicle, could safely navigate at. It's also worth mentioning that if roads were privatized, meaning a huge chunk of the population didn't have their cost largely eaten by another chunk of the population, there would be far fewer cars on the road - drastically changing the complexion of road useage contracts. There would be far fewer 1988 Corollas clogging up the nation's transportation arteries.

I share your sentiment entirely, and I'd like to add my contempt for the underlying, egalitarian, leveling anti-value value judgements that give these laws their admiration and support among the hypocritical general public. Traffic laws must be targeted towards the lowest common denominator of driving skill level. Not to keep these the better drivers safe from these people, but to keep these people safe from the inherently greater risk that involves mixing higher and lower skilled drivers on the same roads. Because these people need roads because they need to be able to get around - so the saying goes. It doesn't matter that, at least ostensibly, they are left to their own devices for survival in every other realm of life, but not when it comes to when it is needed the most. Traffic laws are an organized, concerted effort to avoid the fact that everything in life involved risk. Why not just take these inferior drivers out of the mix? Because these people pay taxes - probably. It's absolutely disgusting on it's face, but even more revolting when you think about it. There is a strong correlation between being a low-skilled (eg: uncoordinated, reckless, etc) driver and being a low-skilled person. That means that groups like old people and poor people - who contribute little or nothing to the upkeep of these roads, let alone the enforcement of traffic laws - benefit not only from everyone else's confiscated tax revenue, but also from the forcible curtailment of their superior driving abilities. Bahumbug!

Was his assertion in the contract? That's all there is to it. It doesn't matter if this stipulation was "within reasonable grounds for the kind of note you should remember" - if it's in the contract, you have to remember it or face the consequences. You should have to remember everything in a contract; that's what contracts are for. Now, I don't know if the contract describes in detail how cancellation fees are processed, but I would have to assume that it at least states on which day of the month your bank account will be debited for the next month. If not, then the manager's assertion - like the company's billing date - is completely arbitrary and you wouldn't have any sort of obligation to pay for October. But if the contract says something like "All early termination fees will be processed in a reasonable time-frame immediately upon receipt" then you have to realize that if that "reasonable time-frame" crosses the point in the future where your membership will be renewed for an additional month, it will be renewed for another month. Obviously, in your case, that point was passed when you assumed that your cancellation fee would be debited immediately. When that debit didn't occur later on the 18th or on the 19th (ie: "up front") because you weren't proactive about it, then you should have expected any changes to your account to occur when they normally do, on your billing date. The fact that your membership still existed when the 20th rolled around constitutes your implied consent to renew it for another month. But it's still really petty to not forgive October when you're perfectly willing to "pay for October" with your cancellation fee (god help you if you pay more than $58/month to exercise). It's not exactly the best way to improve the company's reputation even if such a policy helps to insulate the company from short-term revenue shortages. I bet that manager used to work for a credit card company.

This should be of interest to the Objectivist community. I was going through some old Wall Street Journal newspaper clippings this morning and I came across an advertisement from 2005 (not that long ago, so it's likely that little has changed) that read the following: Kingdom Holding Company is a company led by His Royal Highness (HRH) Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, based in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Investments outside of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have been acquired and are held by HRH or by Trusts for the benefit of HRH and his family. Those investments include: Apple Computer, Inc. Hewlett-Packard Company Canary Wharf, London Pepsi Co. Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts The Plaza Hotel, New York Eastman Kodak Company eBay.com Amazon.com Motorola Inc. Proctor & Gamble News Corporation Priceline.com Citigroup Time Warner Hotel George V, Paris Disneyland Paris Ford Motor Company Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Saks Inc. et al. Have a lovely day

DarkWaters, You addressed one of the two motivations for Muslim enmity towards the US that I cited. I responded in kind. Of course I don't believe that simply removing financial and military support from Israel would defray the focused hatred that Radical Muslims have towards the US. It has to be done in conjunction with a number of other changes to our foreign policy. Most immediately would probably be an economic isolation and draining of the Saudi Royal family so that America's most immediate enemy, Al Quaeda, burns less brightly with hatred (and with money) towards us. I have studied the Objectivist position on Israel thoroughly and I by and large agree with it. I certainly agree with their description of Israel as a nation essentially of individual rights and free enterprise. It is for this reason that just as I don't believe that draining the Saudis could (or should) occur at the drop of a hat, neither do I believe that the US should just turn it's back on Israel tomorrow. We have assumed a moral obligation to help them by doing so throughout their entire existence, and until the US can be reasonably sure that Irael has secured itself (which probably means expending their nuclear arsenal) the status quo should continue. As for your observation about the Balfour Agreement, your history is certainly correct, but I wish to take issue with the statment you made "...jews who offended many Islamic Fundamentalists by occupying the Holy Land." I ask you to keep this statement in mind as I will revisit it later on in this post. Now, as I said in one of my previous posts, I believe that the current threat of groups like Al Queda, The Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, and the entire Iranian Government are very real and very deadly threats to the United States. Our involvement in the Middle-East has given these groups the rationale and - albeit indirectly - the means to inflict significant harm upon this country and need to have their wills and their means to destroy us eliminated immediately and decisivly. This is in the same vein of prudence in which I advocate the gradual distancing of America's ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia discussed above. However, this does not change the fact that I see no such threat from the further, very limited (in the grand scheme of things) spread of Radical Islam in places like South-East Asia, South America, or even Europe. Those places aren't America either and are no more entitled to our assistance than the good people of Israel, or Iraq, or Afghanistan are. As for radicals in or coming to America, that is a domestic issue that deserves a thread of it's own. The analogy I would like to draw between your concern with the Radicalization of these regions of the world is with the concern expressed during the Cold War about the "Sovietization" of places such as South Korea, South Vietnam, and the Eastern Block nations of Europe. I think that this comparison is valid. These nations were, compared to the Soviet Union, bastions of freedom and despite being threatened by or succumbing entirely to Soviet aggression were ultimately spared as a result of the implosion of that empire - for reasons which I have already discussed. And by the way, why did the US defend South Korea in 1950 but not Hungary in 1956? It seems rather arbitrary to help some "allies" (read: victims of one's ideological enemy) and not the others. Perhaps the US should support, or assume responsibility for, South East Asia, South America, and Europe militarily just as it does Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan. As to the sentence of yours which I quoted earlier, it has to do with my examples of Muslim aggression towards the West during the Middle-Ages. You don't believe that these Islam crusaders were not deadly radicals? I wish you could explain that to the Spaniards and the Slavs who fought them, but unfortunately they were killed by these allegedly less-dedicated Muslims. Also, and this is the relevant part, you might explain it to elderly Israelis, the first Zionists, who were the victims of guerilla attacks on their homesteads in much the same brutal way that the early settlers of the American West had their homes burned and their scalps removed. Now, this does not mean that I am categorically opposed to imposing upon the turf of savages, but unlike the Indians of early America, there are 1.2 billion Muslims who much better armed, both materially and ideologically, to oppose any attempts to bring them the enlightenment.

That video is spooky. It's almost uncanny how increasingly concentrated power increasingly attracts the mentally ill. Just give the Senate a few decades and they'll start refering to the pages as eromenoi.

Ctrl y, The Presupposationalist argument, as you report it, is not a form a retortion (Which is not to imply that the Objectivist argument is primarly one either). Essentially, all their argument is doing is conflating "logic" and "god" as if they're the same object, waiting for their opponent to embrace logic and deny god, and then accusing him of a contradiction. It is a completely baseless claim to say that logic is the same thing as god. Perhaps they mean that a "belief in logic" is just as unprovable as a belief in god, but if so, all they're doing is dressing up the typical theistic argument that the atheist cannot prove that their claim of god's existence is not true. Which, of course, he can. While the burdens of proof for both the claim that god exists and that logic exists both lie with their claimants, unlike the assertion that god exists, the assertion that logic exists is supported by evidence and can be easily demonstrated. In fact, I just did it.

Darkwaters, You're right, Israel is our greatest ally in our struggle against Radical Islam. Without them, we wouldn't be in a struggle against Radical Islamic. I think it would be more accurate to say that America is Israel's greatest ally in their struggle against Radical Islam. After all, they're they only non-Muslim country that is located in an area that Muslims think belong to them. If the jews of Europe, after all WWII, were so deperate to have a homeland, they should have done what their less fervently religious, less tribal brothers in faith did and come to America. If anyone in the history of the world had a legitimate claim to political asylum, if was Europe's jews. Geographically, Utah looks alot like Israel. I'm sure the Mormons wouldn't mind; they're probably quite understanding of people wanting to create insulated religious colonies in the desert. There are small minorities of people (usually individuals) in every corner of the world who desire a culture of reason and are surrounded by irrationality. What makes the jews so special - especially when alot of the jews living in Israel are not rational? Many of them are pinko liberals or religious wackos Before the 30-40 year old wave of terrorism we're experiencing now, aside from Spain and the Balkans during the Middle-Ages when they possesed technological superiority over The West, when had Islam ever attacked the West outside of it's own borders? Your "Islamic domino-theory" is even more flawed than the "Communist Domino Theory" of the past. Communism, as an organized political/military force collaped under it's own weight - despite receiving massive economic and military support from the West and being far less adverse to material progress than Islam. I agree that Radical Islam has declared war on the Western World, and given our 100 years of economic and military blundering, the prudent thing to do would be to destroy this generation's means and will to conduct jihad swiftly and decisively. I'm simply saying that as a long term policy the only way to protect America, let alone to reshape the rest of the world, is to mind our own business. The only dealings that Americans should have with the rest of the world is through trade - which necessitates that they have created the political environment to do so as well as something worth trading for. The decreasingly communist nations of Vietnam and China speak loud and clear to this lesson.

Dark Waters, I agree with every thing you wrote. You're correct to state that Radical Islam would hate us regardless of our involvement in the Middle-East and that that involvement didn't create it. My only possible disagreement with you would be with how to deal with it. Just as Qutb's wrath was directed at the Egyptian Government, bin Laden's goals, if you listen to his speeches, are the destruction of the Saudi Government and Israel. He is only attacking America because he sees the US as the main factor enabling these two entities to exist. And you know what, he's right. If it weren't for massive amount of oil wealth given to the Saudi Royal Family - who, being tyrants, don't deserve it merely because they demand it - they wouldn't have the means to "defile the holy Arabian Peninsula" with their Westernized indulgences and their hosting of American troops. If it weren't for the $3 billion that Washington gives Israel annually, it would have been overrun by it's neighbors long ago. I certainly support Israel and I would do whatever I could help it voluntarily, but not at the price of New York City. The point is that yes, bin Laden and various Islamic fanatics all over the Muslim world would hate the West, on a philosophical/religious level, just as much as they do now if a Western foot had never set down on their shores, but that it simply wouldn't matter. They wouldn't have the political capital to point to - the occupations, the support of Israel, the financing of brutal, secular regimes - to rally their otherwise less-dedicated, less philosophically-sophisticated underlings who actually do the martyring. And, as I mentioned before, if it weren't for the likes of Arbusto Oil, Haliburton, and others treating tyrants like business partners, even if they were able to whip 99% of the world's Muslims into a radical jihadist frenzy, they wouldn't have the actual capital to realize it. The best they can come up with is terrorism. And even that only occurs because the same egalitarian approach used by the Neoconservatives who refuse to differentiate between a business concern and a tyrannical government is also used by the liberals at home to refuse to use differnt amounts of discretion for a Saudi Arabian, as opposed to a Candian, who is applying for a student visa.

Yes, I agree completely, hence my reason for creating this thread. If America wants to reduce immigration (which, as a free society, it shouldn't have a position on) it should dismantle whatever socialism it practices. If that happens, the flow of immigrants to this country will naturally decrease leaving only those who are comfortable with complete independence trying to get in. I'm in favor of thise reduction not because I want to protect American culture or the English language or anything like that, I merely want the INS to be able to process these people instead of having them bypassing it out of frustration.

Sophia, Yes, most who immigrate here want to better their lives and most work hard. My point is that they wouldn't be trying to better their lives or working hard in America if it weren't for the safety net that the government provides. I'm mostly talking about legal immigrants here. You're probably correct that illegals try to stay underground and don't go to the government for services, but they benefit from them nonetheless - if only through greater law and order (which they don't pay for). Also, yes, I'm fully aware that they're free to do whatever they want with their money and that they're not obligated to move to Minnesota, learn English, and raise a family. I wasn't addressing their political freedom, I was judging their choices morally. When it comes to your national allegiance, it's a bad idea to literally straddle the fence. I also think that America is a better place to live than Latin America and that any rational person would want to embrace as much of America's culture he can - it's language, it's art, etc. Not just it's money. Yes, American Socialists and Labor Union put on those solidarity marches. Do they force those immigrants to march in them? Finally, it's just untrue that the majority of immigrants are not those who thrive in a mixed economy. You seem to keep thinking that I'm only talking about illegals (who, by the way, do benefit from the inflated wages of a regulated, foreign-investment dependent economy). I'm critiquing the majority of all immigrants just as I critique the majority of all Americans. Most Americans are enthusiastic about our mixed economy. They have no reservations about getting paid for their work and at the same time have no reservations about riding the city bus to the public park to hear a National Endowment For the Arts sponsored concert. They think it's all hunky-dorey the same way an immigrant yearns to be in America for the great jobs but also for the great schools.

Ishinho, You need not be unsure of the level of benevolence out there. Just look at the response you received on this board. Objectivists, the most notoriously selfish people in America, are jumping all over the opportunity to provide you, someone who is "philosophically disabled", with an answer to your question. Certainly none of the people who answered you would have done so if they felt they had nothing to gain and/or keep. Thanks everyone for contributing to the quality of the world, this website, and to the reputation of Objectivism!

Sophia, It's as if you stopped between every paragraph of mine to respond and then continued on to the next. Both of your first two objections are answered in the very next paragraph after the one from which they are derived. As for there being no difference between immigrants of today and of yesteryear, please do tell me how they're no different. Tell me how never learning English, spending 1/2 of the year or half of your money back home in Mexico, or marching down the streets of major American cities shouting demands is the same as settling in Minnesota and raising 3 or 4 generations of every day Americans. With all of that said, I agree with you, immigration is not the problem. It's the type of people who are attracted to and thrive in a mixed economy that are the problem no matter where they're from or what language they speak. This type of person is far more numerous than a completely independent or a completely dependent one.

SoftwareNerd, I don't think that anyone - not the BBC, not Ron Paul, not the CIA, not even Hillary Clinton - is denying that bin Laden isn't trustworthy. In fact, the only people who have ever done so are the upper echelons of the the Republican party. That someone who is the 17th scion of an intimate business partner of the House of Saud would be considered trustworthy is beyond me, but Reagan and Bush 41 thought so. I guess James Bath, BCCI, and Arbusto Oil had alot to do with it. My opinion of bin Laden is probably identical to yours, the only difference being that I don't really care if he's trustworthy or not and it never would have mattered. He would be just another impoverished nut case living in a tent and stealing his neighbor's camels. I would have never made a deal with him or anyone connected to him. Not financially, not diplomatically, and certainly not militarily. Edit: Changed word "thought" to word "done" in 2nd sentence.

Moebius, Look at the rest of the world. The biggest reason why impoverished nations are impoverished is because the vast majority of the populations choose not to make their lives better. Instead, when they're not engaged in back-breaking labor, they spend their scraps of leisure time doing things like getting drunk or trying to improve their lives by basically wishing them so. Instead of advocating rational political reform, they carry signs around in the street that say "Viva el PRI/Hugo Chavez/Fidel Castro/Evo Morales/et al." Instead of taking stock of their lives and learning how to better manage their time and effort, they spend their time rubbing rosary beads and lighting candles. It's not just that these people live under oppressive regimes or in areas ravaged by tribal-warfare, it's that their cultures (ie: what these people advocate and perpetuate on a daily basis) are not compatable with freedom and capitalism. Dictatorships don't come about in societies where principled respect for individual rights, private property, and hard work are deeply embedded in the culture. It's just the opposite; would-be dictators are masterful exploiters of widespread belief in collectivism, altruism, and mysticism already there. If America were a nation of laizzes-faire capitalism, what incentive would there be to jump a train moving 60 MPH for the ride through Mexico, risk being swindled by a smuggler or arrested by the Border Patrol (and any time thereafter), to enter a country where you don't speak the language all so you can cut grass for $10 an hour? Would it be worth the risk if you knew that you would have to walk back and forth to work 10 miles through East Los Angeles every day instead of taking the bus? Would it be worth the risk if you knew that should you get hurt, you're basically dead since you don't have health insurance? Would it be worth it to bring your children along if you knew that, because you can't afford to send them to school, all they have to look forward to is a 10 mile walk to their grass cutting job? Then there's the issue of just why America's labor market pays so well. Do you think it's because we're just swimming in capital left over from 150 years of industrialization and dying to give it away? If it weren't for foriegn governments - many of whom oppress the very immigrants we're discussing - plowing all of the capital that over-taxed, over-regulated American businesses and pragmatic American consumers have given them right back into America's stock, bond, and credit markets, that $10 landscaping job would drop right back down to whatever the market, not the government, says is the minimum wage . Legal or not, many of the immigrants who come to America today are different from their predecessors. They have no clear intention of staying or assimilating and no love for liberty. They are here to earn what they can and to send every dollar they save on health insurance and car payments back to wherever they came from. They are taking advantage of the mixed economy just like everyone else in America is - for their short term benefit. They come here and do just what most native-born Americans do: expect the affluence that the free market delivers and then expect government help wherever it falls short - ignorant of the fact that it was previous government intervention that caused the short fall. So you're right, in the end people come to America just for the money - in the form of both bigger paychecks or cheaper (free) and better government services. That's exactly the problem. Just as the cream of America's crop, soaking in affluence yet riddled with philosophical and political contradictions, so goes the cream of the crop of the rest of the world when they show up in America. While those who come to America are certainly better than their unambitious, superstitious neighbors back home, they still share with them the belief that improving one's life comes from the quick-fix of revolution, religion, or relocation instead of philosophical rumination.

Well, for one thing, history doesn't support this claim. Central and South Americans stayed away from America for a long time. Excepting Cuba, it's not like Latin America is worse off than it was a century ago, so something about America must have changed that attracts Latin Americans here in record numbers. Yes, America discriminated against hispanics back then in their immigration policies, but those generalizations - qua generalizations - were not unfounded. Immigration policies reflect a nation's self-image and back then only people who were thought would support themselves were let in. Today, supporting yourself isn't required in America so we don't require it of immigrants and not even a crude, race-based attempt at it is made. As I've said earlier in this thread, I agree that if laizzes-faire were implimented in this country that would create more prosperity and attract more immigrants, but I think that any addition would be smaller than the subtraction of people who plan to come here because of the extraneous government services that will improve, in whole or in part, their quality of life.

SoftwareNerd, I already addressed this in response to some of DavidOdden's comments. I agree that the cause of the bottleneck (the strained resources of the INS) is the law. But like I told him, I don't think it would fix the problem to simply relax the entrance requirements to their proper level (which should only involve a criminal and/or military background check). Even at their appropriate levels, I think that the flow of immigrants would still be so large that those background checks couldn't be performed in a timely enough matter to keep the desire to bypass the INS from surfacing. Instead, what needs to be addressed is America's mixed-economy - it's welfare state and economic-political favortism. These things are the cause of all the extraneous things required to immigrate. If we did away with those things, the immigration laws would naturally relax themselves and the overall number of wanna-be Americans would decrease.

As I said in my essay, it doesn't matter if these people are legal or illegal immigrants, the point is that they're here. More people are coming here than would otherwise if this country only offered economic opportunity or only offered welfare, not both. It's probably true that the majority of immigrants are self-supporting just the same way that it's true that the majority of native-born Americans are self-supporting in a a majority of the aspects of their lives. That's great, but it isn't relevant to my point. My only point is that without social services (and yes, I include public schools, ERs, city parks, and public transportation in this category) there would be fewer immigrants - and thus could be handled legally by the INS. I don't know why there's a disection of illegal vs. legal immigrants, or this government service vs. that government service going on in this thread. Like I said, most illegal immigration only happens because these people would have to wait years to simply enter the country legally - let alone become citizens. If they didn't have the promise of well-paying jobs COMBINED with the promise of relatively clean, safe streets, efficient transportation, and free education, many of them wouldn't come here, legally or otherwise.