Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Immigration Law in Arizona

Rate this topic


TheEgoist

Recommended Posts

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/23...s-obama-action/

This is giving police a free-and-clear ability to harass citizens, and specifically Latino citizens. And when you give the police an opportunity to be even more forceful, they'll likely take it. I hope the SP slaps this thing down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the text of Governor Jan Brewer's speech, given today.

Thank God she says, "I have listened patiently to both sides. I have considered the significance of this new law long into the night. I have prayed for strength and prayed for our state."

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/23...s-obama-action/

This is giving police a free-and-clear ability to harass citizens, and specifically Latino citizens. And when you give the police an opportunity to be even more forceful, they'll likely take it. I hope the SP slaps this thing down.

TV news, even Fox news, is not a reliable source of information and almost always wrong when it comes to analysis. The article you linked to was pretty much focused on Obama's remarks. Obama can be counted upon to obfuscate and lie.

Link to text of the bill

The controversial paragraph:

[

b]B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,

24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE

25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.

8 USC 1373 - Sec. 1373. Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service

(a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

(B) Additional authority of government entities Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

( c) Obligation to respond to inquiries The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

There are many qualifying words:

REASONABLE SUSPICION

THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN

UNLAWFULLY PRESENT

A REASONABLE ATTEMPT

WHEN PRACTICABLE

Definitions of Probable Cause vs. Reasonable Suspicion

Legal Repercussions

If a police officer has reasonable suspicion in a situation, he may frisk a suspect or detain the suspect briefly. Reasonable suspicion does not allow for searching a person or car, and is not enough for a search warrant or arrest.

Reasonable suspicion permits some investigation, such as asking a suspect for his name and running a background check.

Don't fall for the demagoguery.

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure from all that legalese whether it's what we call (in Colorado--terms may differ in AZ) a "primary offense", i.e., something a cop can pull you over for in and of itself as opposed to otherwise, where the cop can only cite you for it once he has pulled you over for something else. For example, it used to be cops were not allowed to pull you over if the only thing you were doing that was illegal was not wearing a seat belt--they had to nab you for (what the hell else?) speeding (you wouldn't want to pull someone over for performing the equally illegal act of not keeping right except to pass), THEN incidentally note you had no seat belt and write that on the ticket as well. (It has since been made a primary offense in Colorado, but it was once a good example.)

If it is in fact a "primary offense" (or whatever it's called) in Arizona, then people can probably get pulled over or otherwise detained for "looking Mexican" particularly if the cop can hear them speaking and it's not English. That would probably constitute "resonable suspicion." "Papers please!" There will be court cases on this one then!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To play a bit of devil's advocate here, while the language of the law is clearly out of line, the intent goes beyond mere restriction of immigration. Clearly, Arizona does at minimum have a right to ensure that those people who come to reside there are of a law-abiding nature, or to narrow our focus, are not perpetrators of previous crimes of a violent nature. While this particular statement is clearly in danger of painting everyone with a broad brush, the reality is that a great many of these states near the border have had an influx of such people from across the Mexican border, and when they enter the country illegally (or, if you're against "illegal" immigration as such, how about through unofficial channels), you have no means by which to compare them against lists compiled by authorities of their originating nation.

So while I'm against anything that evokes memories of gestapos demanding papers and such, I temper that with the knowledge that the people in those states bordering Mexico are dealing with instances of hightened crime (no, I don't have statistics for Arizona, but some neighboring states have incredibly well docomented instances i.e. Texas) caused by unsavory characters who, even in a world with largely free borders, probably wouldn't make the cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, Arizona does at minimum have a right to ensure that those people who come to reside there are of a law-abiding nature, or to narrow our focus, are not perpetrators of previous crimes of a violent nature.

This is not clear to me. Please explain.

I temper that with the knowledge that the people in those states bordering Mexico are dealing with instances of hightened crime

What sort of crime?

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not clear to me. Please explain.

What sort of crime?

Well, as to the first of your questions, I'm sure we can agree that there is a duty on the part of the police forces to protect the citizenry. From there, while I would never venture to say that all illegal immigrants are criminals in disguise, I WOULD be so bold as to venture that there are enough instances of criminality to warrant some type of action. Further, while it's easy to dismiss certain...accusations as fearmongering (it usually is fearmongering tbh), there are kernels of truth to be found within a lot of what's said. There IS cross border gang violence:

http://www.ticklethewire.com/2010/04/04/cr...illing-machine/

I have some good friends who are first/second generation migrants, who've told me stories about this kinda stuff going on in SoCal and Texas (I almost put New Mexico, but I can't remember the instance in detail, and to give you a brief rundown of crimes involved, intimidation, homicide, theft, possibly racketeering). There is a problem, and while I wouldn't say this particular bill is the way to go, I am at least willing to recognize that this less than perfect piece of legislation is an attempt at finding a solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a problem, and while I wouldn't say this particular bill is the way to go, I am at least willing to recognize that this less than perfect piece of legislation is an attempt at finding a solution.

Jesus H. Christ, what happened to thinking around here? So an attempt at finding a solution is worthy of being praised when its fundamental philosophy is not only flawed but it directly contradicts the principles that objectivism recognizes comprise the rights of an individual? I don't know what you're smoking, but I want none of it.

Edited by kainscalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Arizonans wanted to do something about illegal immigration, they should be up in arms asking for more legal immigration. The more one makes it legal, the less it will be illegal. The less it is illegal, the less it has to live below the surface, and become a breeding ground for sundry other illegals.

Arizonans can start to transition away from a public school system, ending one type of welfare. They can also opt out of Mediaid, and start making noises asking the Feds to give their citizens a tax-rebate for not being part of the Medicaid program, and should ask other like-minded states to join them. They can wind down other state welfare programs.

Instead, they turn their attention to immigrants!

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus H. Christ, what happened to thinking around here? So an attempt at finding a solution is worthy of being praised when its fundamental philosophy is not only flawed but it directly contradicts the principles that objectivism recognizes comprise the rights of an individual? I don't know what you're smoking, but I want none of it.

Even under Binswanger's explanation of open borders there would still be borders. Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration has as a subheadline and caveat "Entry into the U.S. should ultimately be free for any foreigner, with the exception of criminals, would-be terrorists, and those carrying infectious diseases." There would still be such a thing as "illegal entry". The Arizona law is completely subordinate to the federal law on immigration which is the final authority on what constitutes "illegal entry" and who is an alien within the U.S. illegally. Please direct your outrage at the deserving recipients, the federal government and those responsible for its current immigration policy.

There is already a recent thread on the general issue of Ayn Rand & "Open Borders"

edit: I want to add this excellent quote from that other thread. 2046 identifies conservative William F. Buckeley as the source of the term "open borders".

Objectivism upholds "open immigration" or "free immigration," that is, totally free movement of goods, money, people, etc. within the sphere of individual rights.

Perhaps the term "open borders" could be rejected as a neocon smear term or anti-concept, as private property would be protected from trespassers obviously, and people would have to enter official ports of entry rather than the conjured image of people waltzing across the border wherever they please that the term implies. But there would not be any tariffs, exchange controls, or barriers to free trade or migration of any type.

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus H. Christ, what happened to thinking around here? So an attempt at finding a solution is worthy of being praised when its fundamental philosophy is not only flawed but it directly contradicts the principles that objectivism recognizes comprise the rights of an individual? I don't know what you're smoking, but I want none of it.

I assure you, there's still some thinking going on around here. Perhaps be a tad less....polemic less time. In any case, I wouldn't say the fundamental philosophy contradicts the principles of objectivism (at least not as I interpret this bill). For more, see the far superior post above this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law is morally bankrupt and it does contradict the principles in question. This bill isn't targeting any immigrant who may be here in the united states and who may have be guilty of criminal activity, it is treating the presence of any immigrant here by itself as suspect. The police have no right to assume that just because you do not seem like an American-born citizen, that you are in violation of some law. Binswanger, in his article for Capitalism Magazine, demonstrated how crossing the border itself could not possibly be an illegal activity - but rather a principled one- and that what is at fault is the immigration system at work. I am very well aware of Binswanger's argument that those who are criminals do not have the right to enter, and that is perfectly alright-- nevertheless, how could you possibly support or even applaud an effort that, in fact, does not lean in the right principled direction but in fact reinforces the system responsible for all of these problems?

Furthermore, the greatest fault in all of this deals with how the individual is treated by the law: According to correct procedure, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty. The police have no right, for example, to pull you over and breathalyze you without evidence of inebriation by reckless driving or similar indications: a stop is a legal stop only if the officer has probable cause to make a traffic stop. There must be a traffic violation committed in his presence or equipment violation or some type of suspicious activity detected before the officer can effect a legal traffic stop. Under this law, all immigrants must be treated as guilty before innocent. Why? Well, you tell me: What evidence can a policeman have, prima facie, that will indicate that the person in question is an 'illegal' immigrant? The existence of an accent? Yaron Brook has one. Non-caucasian skin? Exotic dress? Not speaking english fluently? A great deal of native-born Americans can't do that anymore. So What constitutes 'Probable Cause' here? By principle you are blanketing a whole subsection of individuals to be deemed guilty before innocent by what can only be completely arbitrary standards (how do you determine a legal immigrant or a naturalized citizen from an illegal immigrant or an illegal criminal or an illegal alien with criminal intent, by pure observation?)-- by observing an individual's actions you may be able to infer whether he may be intoxicated or agressing upon someone, but you cannot by observation alone determine whether he has a mortgage on his house or whether he is an organ donor. These are legal/contractual data, and hard facts and information are required to know that, and that is not acquired through completely different methodology by which you determine a drunk driver.

Having already established that the current definition of illegal entry (being here without going through the baroque, extremely expensive and nearly impossible process of the INS) is immoral, by saying that this is "at least looking for an answer" you are saying you have no problem with the police being granted this level of unconstitutional force in the process of creating a solution that is already bankrupt on principle! You don't NEED to 'look for a solution', we know what the solution is already, and this isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law is morally bankrupt and it does contradict the principles in question. This bill isn't targeting any immigrant who may be here in the united states and who may have be guilty of criminal activity, it is treating the presence of any immigrant here by itself as suspect. The police have no right to assume that just because you do not seem like an American-born citizen, that you are in violation of some law. Binswanger, in his article for Capitalism Magazine, demonstrated how crossing the border itself could not possibly be an illegal activity - but rather a principled one- and that what is at fault is the immigration system at work. I am very well aware of Binswanger's argument that those who are criminals do not have the right to enter, and that is perfectly alright-- nevertheless, how could you possibly support or even applaud an effort that, in fact, does not lean in the right principled direction but in fact reinforces the system responsible for all of these problems?

Furthermore, the greatest fault in all of this deals with how the individual is treated by the law: According to correct procedure, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty. The police have no right, for example, to pull you over and breathalyze you without evidence of inebriation by reckless driving or similar indications: a stop is a legal stop only if the officer has probable cause to make a traffic stop. There must be a traffic violation committed in his presence or equipment violation or some type of suspicious activity detected before the officer can effect a legal traffic stop. Under this law, all immigrants must be treated as guilty before innocent. Why? Well, you tell me: What evidence can a policeman have, prima facie, that will indicate that the person in question is an 'illegal' immigrant? The existence of an accent? Yaron Brook has one. Non-caucasian skin? Exotic dress? Not speaking english fluently? A great deal of native-born Americans can't do that anymore. So What constitutes 'Probable Cause' here? By principle you are blanketing a whole subsection of individuals to be deemed guilty before innocent by what can only be completely arbitrary standards (how do you determine a legal immigrant or a naturalized citizen from an illegal immigrant or an illegal criminal or an illegal alien with criminal intent, by pure observation?)-- by observing an individual's actions you may be able to infer whether he may be intoxicated or agressing upon someone, but you cannot by observation alone determine whether he has a mortgage on his house or whether he is an organ donor. These are legal/contractual data, and hard facts and information are required to know that, and that is not acquired through completely different methodology by which you determine a drunk driver.

Having already established that the current definition of illegal entry (being here without going through the baroque, extremely expensive and nearly impossible process of the INS) is immoral, by saying that this is "at least looking for an answer" you are saying you have no problem with the police being granted this level of unconstitutional force in the process of creating a solution that is already bankrupt on principle! You don't NEED to 'look for a solution', we know what the solution is already, and this isn't it.

well for example, you are pulled over for speeding and the officer asks for the usual. The person gives the officer an id card from a foreign country or gives no ID at all. Most agencies can check if the person has a valid license, registration, etc and then they can be cited for failure to carry and present the id when asked subsequent to the legal stop. However, upon checking and finding out this person is unlicensed, ininsured, and the vehicle is unregistered. It is perfectly reasonable to then ask if this person is a legal resident of the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..

The law is written in legal language. Knowing what the law says means knowing the technical meaning of the terms within the context of the law. "FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT .. " Are the first words in the statute and delimit when this law applies. You are correct that no one can be approached and interrogated simply on a police officer's initiative, that would not be lawful. The standard for when a contact is lawful is already defined as reasonable suspicion and is what protects everyone today from random stops. A contact is also lawful when a person initiates it himself, so when dealing with the state agencies such as the motor vehicle licensing bureaucracy those agencies can now request documentation of citizenship or immigration status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry people, but violating the legal borders of a sovereign nation does not constitute a "right" under any legitimate definition. No one has the "right" to sneak into a country, circumventing the legally established process and proceed to apply for government aid and vote in our elections (and don't try to tell me this hasn't happened). The feds have the responsibility to enforce our laws to protect the citizens, in fact, this their primary responsibility. If the Feds will not do their job, then it falls to the individual state to take up the slack. This love affair that some Objectivists have with the concept of "open borders" is nothing but slow national and cultural suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry people, but violating the legal borders of a sovereign nation does not constitute a "right" under any legitimate definition. No one has the "right" to sneak into a country, circumventing the legally established process and proceed to apply for government aid and vote in our elections (and don't try to tell me this hasn't happened). The feds have the responsibility to enforce our laws to protect the citizens, in fact, this their primary responsibility. If the Feds will not do their job, then it falls to the individual state to take up the slack. This love affair that some Objectivists have with the concept of "open borders" is nothing but slow national and cultural suicide.

This is an argument against democracy and the welfare state, not against immigration. One does have the right to immigrate and emigrate wherever one is able to do so within the sphere of individual rights, even if that includes sneaking into a country where that right is not respected and living underground so to speak.

The second comment is totally irrational, what does an immigrant take away from you? How does an immigrant speaking Spanish for example take your culture away from you? How does an immigrant that does not want to "assimilate" take anything away from you? How does others dealing with immigrants take anything away from you? Who are you to tell me what to do with my life and my property?

You are free to exclude immigrants if you wish, you cannot morally force, through the power of government or otherwise, anyone else to do so.

Anyway, as an aside, listening to leftists trying to argue against this is as pathetic and embarrasing as listening to a conservative trying to defend capitalism. "It's unfair" is the best Obama could do, "it's racist," "stop the hate," "*waves flag of some foreign country*" etc. We should work toward providing these "liberals" with material like George Reismans' "Immigration Plus Welfare State Equal Police State" and the Binswanger/Biddle articles, and hopefully they can learn of actual reasons for open immigration if they aren't too far gone into unthinking and tribalism.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Individual rights does not mean you are able to violate the legitimate laws of the US. If the borders were completely open, we would have the better part of six billion people trying to move here, we simply could not sustain a large influx of people. Freedom and individual rights only have meaning within the context of the Rule of Law. Allowing unrestricted immigration would allow anyone in, including Islamic terrorists and communist insurgents. Do you really want those people here? We have some here already that have come in through the Mexican border. The Border Patrol has found abandoned prayer rugs and Korans on the established routes.

Here is an excerpt of a post from a member my own forum that illustrates some of the problems encountered daily by the people of Arizona:

My brother lives in Maricopa, AZ, out in the Sonora Desert about 100 miles from the border. His wife is on a first name basis with the Border Patrol agents now since the entry corridor shifted late last year to include their property. She no longer can comfortably feed her chickens, water her plants, hang her laundry in her bikini - the reason, on the west of her home is the illegals with the black backpacks running the drugs, and on the east side is the ones who are illegals entering our country. Both are dangerous. My brother and sisterinlaw have altered their way of life and adjusted how and when they do things. She no longer sits at 5am reading her paper and enjoying her coffee, alone after he leaves for work, as this highlights her becoming a target zone. Their home is an open adobe brick they made with their own hands, many windows, no shades or curtians. They are on 40 acreas. On numerous occasions, she has had to stop what she's doing outdoors and head for the house to lock herself in to stay safe. I repeat, they are 100 miles from the border. Something wrong down there at the border that one entering this country illegally can get 100 miles plus inside without interception or detection.

The majority of Mexicans and Central and South Americans here are poorly educated (average education is seventh grade equivalent). What is happening is that illegal immigration is creating the conditions conducive to the establishment of a permanent underclass. As to the language situation, communication and assimilation into the prevailing culture is in the best interests of the US. It is also quite rude to enter a country and demand they learn your language.

Edited by Maximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Individual rights does not mean you are able to violate the legitimate laws of the US.

Barriers to freedom of migration are not legitimate laws.

If the borders were completely open, we would have the better part of six billion people trying to move here, we simply could not sustain a large influx of people.

Anyone who wants land, property, or resources, and has the means to get it, has a right to and that right should be recognized and protected. Living space would reach equilibrium.

Freedom and individual rights only have meaning within the context of the Rule of Law. Allowing unrestricted immigration would allow anyone in, including Islamic terrorists and communist insurgents.

No, it wouldn't. This is a inane as some of the arguments like "free immigration would mean an invading army would be allowed to come in."

Here is an excerpt of a post from a member my own forum that illustrates some of the problems encountered daily by the people of Arizona:

This is an argument against trespass. That is already illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barriers to freedom of migration are not legitimate laws.

According to whom? They are the Law of the land, passed by Congress and constitutional under our system of government. Do you advocate, then, violation of the law?

Anyone who wants land, property, or resources, and has the means to get it, has a right to and that right should be recognized and protected. Living space would reach equilibrium.

If one legally immigrates, and has the resources to do so, more power to them. Anyone who come in illegally and demands something from me or others has no "right" to do any such thing.

No, it wouldn't. This is a inane as some of the arguments like "free immigration would mean an invading army would be allowed to come in."

The economy could not sustain a large influx of people that the opening of the borders would cause.

This is an argument against trespass. That is already illegal.

Then why is the law not enforced? The Border Patrol does not have the manpower to effectively deal with the problem, nor does local law enforcement. Did you know there have been incursions inside the borders of the US by members of the Mexican Army? Owing to the level of corruption within the Mexican government, the mexican drug cartels pay certain elements within the military to provide "protection" for their mules. Should we look the other way in this case as well? Do they have the "right" to engage in these activities? They certainly have the "means!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to whom? They are the Law of the land, passed by Congress and constitutional under our system of government. Do you advocate, then, violation of the law?

According to me (but I also happen to agree with the concept of individual rights.) The laws are immoral and I advocate their repeal. You know that it is illegal to advocate violation of the law. Why are you baiting me?

If one legally immigrates, and has the resources to do so, more power to them. Anyone who come in illegally and demands something from me or others has no "right" to do any such thing.

You are package-dealing. Free immigration does not include demanding anything from anyone except that he NOT restrict your freedom of action.

The economy could not sustain a large influx of people that the opening of the borders would cause.

I disagree. The economy would benefit from free immigration. The economy can not sustain a large influx of conservatism, protectionism, and national socialism.

Then why is the law not enforced? The Border Patrol does not have the manpower to effectively deal with the problem, nor does local law enforcement. Did you know there have been incursions inside the borders of the US by members of the Mexican Army? Owing to the level of corruption within the Mexican government, the mexican drug cartels pay certain elements within the military to provide "protection" for their mules. Should we look the other way in this case as well? Do they have the "right" to engage in these activities? They certainly have the "means!"

If migrants could come into the country legally, why would they need to sneak into the country? If drugs were treated as any other good, why would they need to bribe government officials and sneak their "mules" across the border? Again, what part of free immigration entails the right of an invading army to come in? What part of free immigration entails trespass? What part of an individual being free to act as he chooses, without being subject to force by others or by the government do you not understand, or agree with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to me (but I also happen to agree with the concept of individual rights.) The laws are immoral and I advocate their repeal. You know that it is illegal to advocate violation of the law. Why are you baiting me?

I am not baiting you. You stated in a previous post that they have the right to violate the law:

One does have the right to immigrate and emigrate wherever one is able to do so within the sphere of individual rights, even if that includes sneaking into a country where that right is not respected and living underground so to speak.

That is advocating violating the law.

You are package-dealing. Free immigration does not include demanding anything from anyone except that he NOT restrict your freedom of action.

Once again, you stated that an illegal immigrant has the "right" to enter the country in disregard for the law, which is a violation of my right as an American citizen to be secure within the borders of my own country.

I disagree. The economy would benefit from free immigration. The economy can not sustain a large influx of conservatism, protectionism, and national socialism.

How would an economy in recession, with an unemployment rate of 10% (lowball) benefit by having an influx of people when we do not have jobs for the ones already here? Wouldn't it be prudent to fix our economic problems first before even considering such? National Socialism is Nazism, so you have just invoked Godwin's Law. *shakes head* I do not advocate protectionism or conservatism, but I do advocate having a border. One can not have a country without a legally recognized border. A border ceases to effectively exist if one does not guard it in some manner.

If migrants could come into the country legally, why would they need to sneak into the country? If drugs were treated as any other good, why would they need to bribe government officials and sneak their "mules" across the border? Again, what part of free immigration entails the right of an invading army to come in? What part of free immigration entails trespass?

Do you really think an influx of cocaine and heroin would be beneficial to our society? Remember, we do not have the moral/philosophical base required for the majority of people to make rational choices, so we would end up with a very high rate of ODs, deaths and ruined families and lives. I never mentioned an invading army, so I don't know where you pulled that one out of. Free immigration does not necessarily imply trespass, but it does imply letting anyone come on in, regardless of their ability to contribute, their educational level, their willingness to assimilate or their willingness to declare their allegiance to this country.

What part of an individual being free to act as he chooses, without being subject to force by others or by the government do you not understand, or agree with?

If an individual is free to act as he chooses, without regard for restraint, would that not constitute anarchy? I well understand individual rights, within the context of a legally constituted government and the rule of law, and spent eight years defending the liberty you now enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is advocating violating the law.

No, it's not. You have the right to do it, I never advocated doing it.

Once again, you stated that an illegal immigrant has the "right" to enter the country in disregard for the law, which is a violation of my right as an American citizen to be secure within the borders of my own country.

Only if you own the entire country and everything in it.

How would an economy in recession, with an unemployment rate of 10% (lowball) benefit by having an influx of people when we do not have jobs for the ones already here?

There is a potentially unlimited amount of work to be done. The unemployment problem is caused by government actions.

Wouldn't it be prudent to fix our economic problems first before even considering such?

You are asking if it would be prudent to protect individual rights before we can consider protecting individual rights.

Do you really think an influx of cocaine and heroin would be beneficial to our society?

Strawman.

Remember, we do not have the moral/philosophical base required for the majority of people to make rational choices, so we would end up with a very high rate of ODs, deaths and ruined families and lives.

These are really poor arguments man. You cannot force someone to be rational at the point of a gun.

I never mentioned an invading army, so I don't know where you pulled that one out of.

You did, you said:

"Did you know there have been incursions inside the borders of the US by members of the Mexican Army?"

Followed by:

"Do they have the "right" to engage in these activities?"

and the earlier argument you tried to make that (paraphrasing) 'We can't allow free immigration because then we have to let the Islamofascists in and then they'll impose Sharia on New Jersey!"

The "invading army" argument has been an old tried and true strawman for opposing free immigration by suggesting that if a country has open immigration to whoever is free to come in, then that means agents of foreign governments will have to be allowed in for some idiotic reason and take over the country with military force. It's obviously a bad argument for not respecting individual rights and can be applied in any context from the Mexian Army to Islamists to Soviet spies, etc.

Free immigration does not necessarily imply trespass, but it does imply letting anyone come on in, regardless of their ability to contribute, their educational level, their willingness to assimilate or their willingness to declare their allegiance to this country.

So? Again, what does an immigrant take away from you? How does an immigrant speaking Spanish for example take your culture away from you? How does an immigrant that does not want to "assimilate" take anything away from you? How does an immigrant not wanting to "contribute" take anything away from you? How does an immigrant's educational level take anything away from you? What does an immigrant's "willingess to declare their allegiance" take from you which you are otherwise entitled, by right, to defend? Are you going to send armed agents of the State to kick down my door and force me to declare my "allegiance" to the nation-state or be sent to the gas chamber? Who are you to tell me what to do with my life and my property?

If an individual is free to act as he chooses, without regard for restraint, would that not constitute anarchy?

It would be, if that's what I said. However, if you go back and read the sentence, you'll notice I did not say that and individual is free to act without regard for restraint, and you'll have learned what I actually said was: "...individual being free to act as he chooses, without being subject to force by others or by the government..." and this is what "rights" are.

I well understand individual rights,

Obviously not, and that's where your problem is.

and spent eight years defending the liberty you now enjoy.

Not really.

Edited by 2046
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...