Search the Community

Let's focus on the difference between border screening and border control. I'm not going to entertain Binswanger's open borders position here. I did that on another thread. Here I invite DonAthos (and others) to present their border screening position, and we can respectfully debate the issue. I'll offer my view supporting principled border control. My position, in a nutshell, is that the government of a nation has the absolute right to control its borders. Much of my argument is based on a disagreement I have with Rand over the existence of public property. I presented my case here. I submit that if you don't agree that public property exists and is a valid form of property, then you won't agree with my argument for border control. So maybe you want to address that issue first. If not, I'll listen to your positive case for screening and respond. In addition to the linked thread, I recently addressed the issue of political groups in some Facebook comments. I've revised them a little for this context, but admittedly they weren't written with this forum in mind. I think they address a critical question though about the nature of groups and rights. ***** "Group membership" There is no conflict between my life belonging to me and me joining a group. It's my life. I can join a group if I want. I can even submit to certain rules of a group in order to gain the value of being part of that group. When I choose to be part of a group, then people can rightly treat me as a member of that group, within limits of course. When I join a social group, I agree to obey the rules of that society. I am thus obligated to submit to these rules. I must treat others in accordance with the rules of the group, even when the rules differ from my personal standards. Essentially I am trading some of my individual sovereignty (self-government) for whatever value membership in the social group provides. "Political structure" Noncitizens can participate in a political structure, but citizens are members of that political structure. The citizens comprise it. There is no political structure without the people who make up that structure. This doesn't mean the citizens of a nation meld together into a Borg ship-like entity. It just means that there are real political relationships that define a national group of people.

An immigrant to the United States from Uzbekistan who arrived here in 2010 has committed an act of mass murder in New York, killing 8 people along a bike path and shouting "allahu akbar." https://t.co/sQtoZFLdeG

Objectivist Ed Powell has written a paper against the open borders immigration position of other Objectivists (Binswanger, Tracinski, Biddle, Bernstein, Duke). This raises the question: Does a foreigner have a right to cross an international border? Powell says no. Powell says the burden of proof that any applicant for entry is not a threat to the freedom or security of the country lies with the applicant. The paper is well written, the position well argued. For reference: Binswanger's essay and Biddle's essay

Hi everyone. I haven't been an active poster on this forum since I was younger, but I thought that I could tell everyone about my Objectivist oriented immigration FB page. I started this page because I think that the uniquely Objectivist viewpoint of individualism is missing from immigration discussion. To use some typical examples, the Left talks about some mushy notion of "love" as though it's a winning immigration argument, while the Right talks about "American Jobs" and deterministic qualities like voting demographics and I.Q. tests. If you agree with me that the individual needs more consideration check out my page, thank you https://www.facebook.com/IndividualistsForImmigration/

Immigration is generally beneficial. It usually adds to a nation's economic wealth and military strength, and even to its intellectual power and cultural riches. Unfortunately, everyone in the world today lives in a Welfare State. This is a kind of 'moderate', collectivist tyranny, which could also be described as semi-lawlessness, featuring a permanent civil war between residents, or a Hobbesian "war of all against all". Theft from, and coercion of, one's neighbors is rampant. Big Brother is everywhere nowadays. So it matters how predatory and efficaciously warlike any potential new immigrants will be. Competent parasites and powerful civil warriors aren't desirable. Thus today only the good people should be allowed in to a high-quality nation. Only the cream of the world's crop. The bad people, in turn, should be assiduously kept out. Indeed, the good would-be immigrants should be positively recruited. Maybe even rewarded or bribed for coming over. "Good" means those who enhance the quality of life of the nation. Those who add to the material wealth and raise the level of civilization, etc. Specifically, immigrants to a superior country should be workers -- especially hard and smart ones -- and not thieves/criminals or welfarist beggars. Any such social parasites and nation-destroyers should be disallowed and deported -- even those of long-time citizenship. The highly religious, self-sacrificial, and welfare statist should also be forbidden. People of bad philosophy almost always undermine a nation's culture, lifestyle, and spirit, among other things. "Good" also means the healthy, wealthy, comely, intelligent, well-educated, virtuous, rational, individualist, and freedom-loving. Also those who will quickly learn the language, adopt most of the culture, and become a patriot. A proper, good, and wise immigration policy will forthrightly forbid or expel all traitorous, bigoted lowlifes back to the primitive, corrupt, socialist hellholes whence they came.

Does anybody have any opinions on the ruling? My own summary of the underlying premises of the reactions to it is this: Bad and wrong: discriminating against people based on their ethnicity they did not choose. Prudent and correct: discriminating against people based on their place of birth they did not choose. But I must admit I didn't get into much depth on it. Did anybody here?

I have an immigrant friend who is in the USA on a student visa, and she would like to find a way to work in the USA legally, but her school does not offer this type of service. She says she has found an agency that can help, but says it would cost her a thousand dollars (which makes it seem non-legitimate to me). Any advise you immigrant lawyer types can direct me to? I've looked it up on the web and all I get are official government sites that say work through your school. Is there an agency that can help her out without it costing her an arm and a leg? Thank in advance! I certainly think that our immigration laws are highly irrational and an immigrant ought to be free to move here without interference, so long as they obey the rational laws. They wouldn't be permitted to vote until becoming a citizen, but early on the only regulations where that one would have to live here for a certain number of years (and perhaps develop land) and they could become a citizen.These days it is far different, and I swear the Immigration Office is trying to instill the idea in immigrants that the USA is not a free country.