Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Immigration Law in Arizona

Rate this topic


TheEgoist

Recommended Posts

Will you be living up to those two conditions as well?

Also, as long as I don't accept anything from the government, and I exchange goods and services with other people, I can do whatever I like? Is that what you're saying? No other conditions whatsoever?

You want to pretend there are no Mexicans working without permit in the US? Because that's the only thing I asked you to imagine.

Yes.

As long as you don't initiate force against another person, but do I really have to stipulate that on this forum? Are you really going to regress to the assumptions of a savage every time someone puts any specific conditions in a contract?

No, I want to accept the reality that there are foreign (including Mexican) workers in the United States, who are able to compete successfully against legal workers because they are not subject to minimum wage laws, union laws, FICA, Medicare, unemployment and state and federal income taxes and associated administrative costs to their employers. If they are legalized, they will lose that edge and a new wave of illegals will wash in, taking jobs from the legal, and in many, many cases, making it attractive or even necessary for the "legals" to go on the public dole.

On Edit:

But does anyone want to address the prior point, that in a moral society, all property is privately owned, and that those owners have the right to prevent the uninvited from entering their property?

Edited by agrippa1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as you don't initiate force against another person, but do I really have to stipulate that on this forum? Are you really going to regress to the assumptions of a savage every time someone puts any specific conditions in a contract?

Maybe I'm making a hasty assumption... What did have in mind when you asked the question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as you don't initiate force against another person

How come you expect me to not initiate force against anyone, when you support a law which requires the Police to initiate force against me?

But does anyone want to address the prior point, that in a moral society, all property is privately owned, and that those owners have the right to prevent the uninvited from entering their property?

I figured there's nothing to address. Getting from Mexico City to Houston is not a question for the thread on immigration, any more than getting from Houston to New York would be. It's a question for the property rights thread, and a very easy one to answer: Mexicans can enter the country the same way I can leave it: by going around/above private property, or gaining permission from the property owner.

Maybe I'm making a hasty assumption... What did have in mind when you asked the question?

I was waiting for you to ask that imaginary alien worker to not initiate force against others, on principle, in his context (which is 2010 United States), so that I can point out the hypocrisy in citing the same context as justification for Arizona Republicans initiating force against him.

And, as you can see, the imaginary Mexican did eventually get to make that point to you, above.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still thinking about this issue.

When people can move freely indefinitely the welfare state becomes unsustainable quickly and breaks down. To me that is the strongest argument for open immigration. Restricting immigration (aside from criminal background checks) helps to maintain the socialistic status quo.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is immoral about not feeling obliged to let a stranger enter your property without your permission?

And for the third time: You own the entire United States of America how?

What is immoral about wanting to let a foreigner enter my property without agrippa1's permission? In other words, the same complaint you have about some hypothetical forced integration applies to the forced exclusion of the very law you are supporting. A little consistency please!

But does anyone want to address the prior point, that in a moral society, all property is privately owned, and that those owners have the right to prevent the uninvited from entering their property?

Are you kidding? Have you not read some of the posts Cogito, Trebor, kainscalia, Jake E, and I have been making in this very thread? Maybe you ought to look, we're the ones who are defending the right of private property owners to include or exclude whoever they want as long as it does not represent an initiation of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still thinking about this issue.

When people can move freely indefinitely the welfare state becomes unsustainable quickly and breaks down. To me that is the strongest argument for open immigration. Restricting immigration (aside from criminal background checks) helps to maintain the socialistic status quo.

So this becomes a question of sanction. Stop supporting the system, let it break down. I am not persuaded that reenacting the scenario of Atlas Shrugged ought to be our goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this becomes a question of sanction. Stop supporting the system, let it break down. I am not persuaded that reenacting the scenario of Atlas Shrugged ought to be our goal.

Yes, I thought about it but I don't consider it the same. Economy is created by the producers but it is not dependent on the looting/redistributive system the way it is claimed. In fact it is the opposite.

Also in practice, it would be a gradual process of failure and withdrawal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Closing the borders and letting the system break down are the only two alternatives?

Yes. Today that is the truth. Other alternatives exist, but not enough people are interested in actually rolling back the welfare state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I thought about it but I don't consider it the same. Economy is created by the producers but it is not dependent on the looting/redistributive system the way it is claimed. In fact it is the opposite.

Also in practice, it would be a gradual process of failure and withdrawal.

Hopefully that would be true, but hyperinflations are both gradual and catastrophic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for the third time: You own the entire United States of America how?

I don't. Where did I say I did? I said that a property owner has the right to not let someone enter their property. In a moral society, according to Objectivism, there is only private property, so the entry of an alien requires a property owner to invite the alien in, for whatever purpose he decides. If you want to invite an illegal into your land to work your crops, have a nut. Just don't ask me to pay when the crop doesn't come in and the workers need unemployment or welfare or Obamacare to get by.

Get it???????????????

If YOU own the property, do what you want with it. If I own the property, I expect you to respect my right to not invite or accept anyone I choose to not allow in, regardless of why I choose so.

Using the argument that illegals are entering public property, which can not (for some, ungiven reason) be the subject of trespassing laws, evades the principle that public property goes against the principles of Objectivism.

Do you respect property do rights, or do you not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm hello? Can you not read, or have you not been paying attention? Have I not been saying that since 20 pages ago?

I guess you evaded it because it helps you to pretend that you can be for property rights and restricted immigration (and police state legislation) at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/initiate

Trespassing is the initiation of force. Removing a trespasser is not. See "Cashing In: the Student Rebellion."

Who's property did I trespass on?

Yes. Today that is the truth. Other alternatives exist, but not enough people are interested in actually rolling back the welfare state.

How would raiding car washes and shoving immigrants into dark vans make the welfare state sustainable?

In a moral society, according to Objectivism, there is only private property

That's not necessarily true (and it wouldn't be true, any time soon, if the US became capitalist), meaning there would be unowned land.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would raiding car washes and shoving immigrants into dark vans make the welfare state sustainable?

The Supreme Court's reasoning in Plyler v. Doe was that the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection to all persons, illegal aliens remain persons regardless of their immigration status, therefore the state of Texas could not deny the children of undocumented immigration status the state education it provides to other children. It is only a matter of time until every possible government benefit is contested in court this way and provided to all residents regardless of immigration status. The reasoning is impeccable, so the only way around it is to make the undocumented persons no longer residents.

edit: Plyler v. Doe

edit: font experiment

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court's reasoning in Plyler v. Doe was that the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection to all persons, illegal aliens remain persons regardless of their immigration status, therefore the state of Texas could not deny the children of undocumented immigration status the state education it provides to other children. It is only a matter of time until every possible government benefit is contested in court this way and provided to all residents regardless of immigration status. The reasoning is impeccable, so the only way around it is to make the undocumented persons no longer residents.

edit: Plyler v. Doe

edit: font experiment

The speaker in your quote is looking for a solution to denying immigrants services citizens get, not to avoiding the bankruptcy of welfare programs. He has proven very well, that if you, as a legislature or executive, plan to discriminate between the two groups of people for decades to come, the only way courts could possibly allow you to do that, in such a long time frame, is if you deny the non-Americans residency.

That is his goal. But he does not address your goal, keeping the welfare system afloat, in any way. Do you consider the two goals logically equivalent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speaker in your quote is looking for a solution to denying immigrants services citizens get, not to avoiding the bankruptcy of welfare programs. He has proven very well, that if you, as a legislature or executive, plan to discriminate between the two groups of people for decades to come, the only way courts could possibly allow you to do that, in such a long time frame, is if you deny the non-Americans residency.

That is his goal. But he does not address your goal, keeping the welfare system afloat, in any way. Do you consider the two goals logically equivalent?

:lol: I didn't mean to fool you or anyone with my font experiment but that is me writing, it is not a quote. (I'm playing with fonts due to watching youtube videos about Helvetica.)

No, the goals are not equivalent but they are obviously related. Fewer beneficiaries means better finances for the government, and possibly lower taxes or inflation.

Of course the best solution would be to deny everyone those wealth redistribution services, but few want to fair in that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the goals are not equivalent but they are obviously related. Fewer beneficiaries means better finances for the government, and possibly lower taxes or inflation.

Ok. Would excluding blacks have the same degree of logical relation to your goal, would it be closer or farther, and why?

P.S.[late edit, I'm at work, sorry] My position is that neither can be said to be logically "related" to your goal. I can give you any number of examples of complex systems in which modifying a parameter would have the opposite consequence of what intuitive thinking might suggest.

In the case of this particular complex system, morality is an objective, logical "guide" to our decisions. Intuition tells us denying some rights for Mexicans would lead to positive results, in my opinion morality tells us the exact opposite.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. Would excluding blacks have the same degree of logical relation to your goal, would it be closer or farther, and why?

It would have the same relation but of course the 14th amendment is written in terms of persons to prohibit such discrimination, even in the context of constitutional law blacks and slaves were always referred to as persons. Remember the phrase "three fifths of all other Persons" from Article I? The fourteenth amendment is good, and even in the present cultural and philosophical context it is secure from alteration because of its compatibility with egalitarian principles.

edit: My own goal is not to preserve the welfare state so I do not regard that as a positive result. However, I do want to preserve the state and myself. I don't want to die in a riot or famine, or be bankrupted in a hyperinflation.

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm hello? Can you not read, or have you not been paying attention? Have I not been saying that since 20 pages ago?

I guess you evaded it because it helps you to pretend that you can be for property rights and restricted immigration (and police state legislation) at the same time.

I think what you said was "only individual property owners have the right to keep people off their property."

I would like to point out first that the assertion is factually false, in that group ownership of a property gives the group the right to keep people off their land. (Or, can anyone pull up to Mum & Dad's kitchen table, since their house is jointly, not individually, owned?)

So your assertion is that the right attains to groups of individuals, but not to groups of individuals with a government acting as their agent?

Are you willing to outlaw gated communities, based on your principle?

If not, then at what point, and by what principle, does a community agent become a government entity, and suddenly lose the right to keep trespassers off on behalf of its membership/citizenry?

If you can provide the principle that supports your assertion, I'd be happy to hear it, but so far all I hear is assertion passed off as axiom.

Sorry if I don't buy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what you said was "only individual property owners have the right to keep people off their property."

I would like to point out first that the assertion is factually false, in that group ownership of a property gives the group the right to keep people off their land. (Or, can anyone pull up to Mum & Dad's kitchen table, since their house is jointly, not individually, owned?)

So your assertion is that the right attains to groups of individuals, but not to groups of individuals with a government acting as their agent?

Are you willing to outlaw gated communities, based on your principle?

If not, then at what point, and by what principle, does a community agent become a government entity, and suddenly lose the right to keep trespassers off on behalf of its membership/citizenry?

If you can provide the principle that supports your assertion, I'd be happy to hear it, but so far all I hear is assertion passed off as axiom.

Sorry if I don't buy it.

There are only individual rights. There are no collective rights.

Please read Miss Rand's "Collectivized Rights."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what you said was "only individual property owners have the right to keep people off their property."

I would like to point out first that the assertion is factually false, in that group ownership of a property gives the group the right to keep people off their land. (Or, can anyone pull up to Mum & Dad's kitchen table, since their house is jointly, not individually, owned?)

So your assertion is that the right attains to groups of individuals, but not to groups of individuals with a government acting as their agent?

Are you willing to outlaw gated communities, based on your principle?

If not, then at what point, and by what principle, does a community agent become a government entity, and suddenly lose the right to keep trespassers off on behalf of its membership/citizenry?

If you can provide the principle that supports your assertion, I'd be happy to hear it, but so far all I hear is assertion passed off as axiom.

Sorry if I don't buy it.

A group is made up of individuals, who have the right to control their property use. Now surely you can do a better job of reading comprehension, seeing as how I explicitly addressed owners acting in groups or contractually, and owners associations and things like gated communities and voluntary zoning in this post. Either you are very confused as to what property rights mean, or you just seem to like making up things about me to prove points that have already been made by me.

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...