Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Immigration Law in Arizona

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I am not sure how you have arrived at this. You seem to be jumping to conclusions.

Was it because I mentioned merit? That at least would be a good start. I do believe that some screening is necessary. I am open to arguments in regard to what criteria is best. I am not sure if you realize just how broken your current immigration system is. Almost anything seems like an improvement.

He arrived at it through reductio ad absurdum.

Because you don't have a right to violently impede the freedom of migration of an individual over property that you do not control because he lacks "merit" to freely deal with people that are otherwise disposed of dealing with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 628
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is not easy enough to argue on the meaning of the term license or the plaintiffs would done so and won. There is nothing at all unconventional about the Arizona business licensing process compared

Oh, I have a very good idea, Sophia. I am a legal Immigrant here, and for the past ten years I have been struggling to attain perpetuity. Believe you me, if anyone on this forum knows how fucked up the current immigration system is, it would be me.

Sorry, but by principle alone you don't have the right to ban anyone from immigrating into this country, if they are not criminals or terrorists.

Period.

I am also an immigrant and the only reason why I am a Canadian citizen and not an American citizen is because of immorality of American immigration law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am also an immigrant and the only reason why I am a Canadian citizen and not an American citizen is because of immorality of American immigration law.

Good for you then. I'm keeping America. I'll be dragged to Canada only as a corpse. Hence, I am interested in the right changes being made to immigration here, not just any old change, and I certainly won't let statists like the ones who keep popping up in this thread use strawmen arguments and alarmist hysteria.

Edited by kainscalia
Link to post
Share on other sites
We're All Felons, Now

Perpetual public fear of crime has turned us all into criminals.

Radley Balko | October 19, 2009

"There's no way to rule innocent men.

The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.

Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.

One declares so many things to be a crime

that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

—Ayn Rand

"Violent crime is down America, across the board, spanning two decades. Earlier this month, the Justice Department announced that the incidence of reported rape had hit a 20-year low. Homicides are down, as are juvenile violence and crimes committed against children. Crime rates have been plummeting since the early 1990s to such an extent that explaining the drop has become something of an obsession among criminologists and sociologists."

"In his new book, the Boston-based civil liberties advocate and occasional Reason contributor Harvey Silverglate estimates that in 2009, the average American commits about three federal felonies per day."

"Whatever one may think of Ayn Rand's political philosophy or ethics, her criminal justice prophecy has proven unsettlingly accurate: In our continuing eagerness to purge American society of crime, we've allowed the government to make us all into criminals."

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just making the point that "full logical conclusion" does not terminate where you thought it terminated. The attempted reductio ad absurdum fails.

I disagree. That would be due to an improper distinction between interventionism and defensive/retaliatory action. The government is correct in cracking down on trespassers attempting to invade your property because you have the right to exclude people. But you don't have the right to force others to exclude people because you don't own the entire country as private property. Thus the reductio ad absurdum for international immigration restriction applies for interstate immigration restriction, interregional immigration restriction, interlocal immigration restriction, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good for you then. I'm keeping America. I'll be dragged to Canada only as a corpse.

Some people I know are still illegal in US after close to 17 years (that is how long ago I moved from NY to Vancouver). I chose not to live that life. That was my personal judgment you are free to yours.

Hence, I am interested in the right changes being made to immigration here, not just any old change, and I certainly won't let statists like the ones who keep popping up in this thread use strawmen arguments and alarmist hysteria.

Right changes can be made after the elimination of the welfare state. I understand the reluctance of American citizens, given their rapidly growing welfare state, to just open borders right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Right changes can be made after the elimination of the welfare state. I understand the reluctance of American citizens, given their rapidly growing welfare state, to just open borders right now.

Perhaps in short order you'll be glad that you're not here in the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. That would be due to an improper distinction between interventionism and defensive/retaliatory action. The government is correct in cracking down on trespassers attempting to invade your property because you have the right to exclude people. But you don't have the right to force others to exclude people because you don't own the entire country as private property. Thus the reductio ad absurdum for international immigration restriction applies for interstate immigration restriction, interregional immigration restriction, interlocal immigration restriction, etc.

Your premise makes no sense. You are saying that it is okay for me to defend my property against trespass, but that the country has no right to defend against trespass across its border. This is what I was referring to earlier when I said you were arguing that the country really doesn't exist, and is just 300,000,000+ individuals who just happen to live on the same landmass. If a country has no right to control who crosses its boundaries, then the border effectively ceases to exist. Your further breakdown is ridiculous, because the free movement of goods, services in the internal US is codified under the Interstate Commerce clause, and is what it's intent actually is. That people have the right to travel freely within our borders goes without saying - no state has the authority under federalism to restrict the free travel of the citizen of another state for arbitrary reasons. An illegal alien has no right to travel anywhere - they have no business within the borders of the country to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kidnappings prompted Arizona lawmakers to take away Police resources from investigating actual crimes, and send them after immigrants who have harmed no one?

No, I'm pretty sure what prompted this law is chauvinism, not a desire for justice.

Chauvinism, (pronounced /ˈʃoʊvɨnɪzəm/), in its original and primary meaning, is an exaggerated, bellicose patriotism and a blind belief in national superiority and glory.

Please. B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your premise makes no sense. You are saying that it is okay for me to defend my property against trespass, but that the country has no right to defend against trespass across its border.

Such terrible reasoning. Look at the words you are using and the package-dealing you are committing. An individual can defend his property from trespass. A group of individuals can defend their property from trespass. A group of people can get together and exclude any foreigner from having the right of way. But you do not get to decide who someone else gets to include, and you don't have the right to use the government to force another individual to refuse people he otherwise wants to include.

Borders are not magic. Borders are not special. Borders are not God. "The nation" is not magic. "The nation" is not special. The nation-state is not God.

We've already answered the question of what borders are legitimately multiple times, but since you're not going to answer to these arguments and just keep reciting that "the nation" gets to decide who crosses "its" (actually you use "it's") border and control how many of them damned brown-skinned wetbacks get to come in so as not to take our jerbs and pollute our communities with their filthy foreign language, I won't bother linking to them again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Edit: Just a quick note to Maximus. I think a reason your position is catching the most flak is because of the rationale you have. There are a great multitude of reasons to avoid falling into "they took our jobs" type mentality, which appears to be what you are communicating to us, which in turn is causing some to decry you as a pragmatist (though my analysis may be incorrect. Do correct me if so).

No, not jobs. It is respect for the rule of law and for our sovereign right as a nation to determine who we allow to enter and under what conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Such terrible reasoning. Look at the words you are using and the package-dealing you are committing. An individual can defend his property from trespass. A group of individuals can defend their property from trespass. A group of people can get together and exclude any foreigner from having the right of way. But you do not get to decide who someone else gets to include, and you don't have the right to use the government to force another individual to refuse people he otherwise wants to include.

Borders are not magic. Borders are not special. Borders are not God. "The nation" is not magic. "The nation" is not special. The nation-state is not God.

We've already answered the question of what borders are legitimately multiple times, but since you're not going to answer to these arguments and just keep reciting that "the nation" gets to decide who crosses "its" (actually you use "it's") border and control how many of them damned brown-skinned wetbacks get to come in so as not to take our jerbs and pollute our communities with their filthy foreign language, I won't bother linking to them again.

Borders are special, bub. If you think the nation is not special, then maybe you should hump a weapon in it's defense in a third world shit-hole like I did when you were probably in diapers. You'd damn sure think it was special then, I shit you not. B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Borders are special, bub. If you think the nation is not special, then maybe you should hump a weapon in it's defense in a third world shit-hole like I did when you were probably in diapers. You'd damn sure think it was special then, I shit you not. :dough:

Non sequitur + retardation.

Edit: and I love how you handle any criticism by jumping into the “I was fighting for your freedoms back in the 'Nam, you dirty hippie!” line, that is so predictable coming from the average conservative, usually when espousing some anti-freedom policy.

Edited by 2046
Link to post
Share on other sites
Non sequitur + retardation.

Edit: and I love how you handle any criticism by jumping into the “I was fighting for your freedoms back in the 'Nam, you dirty hippie!” line, that is so predictable coming from the average conservative, usually when espousing some anti-freedom policy.

:dough:

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are saying that it is okay for me to defend my property against trespass, but that the country has no right to defend against trespass across its border. This is what I was referring to earlier when I said you were arguing that the country really doesn't exist, and is just 300,000,000+ individuals who just happen to live on the same landmass. If a country has no right to control who crosses its boundaries, then the border effectively ceases to exist.

This is certainly consistent with the historical notion of sovereignty (as is rex non potest peccare), however, Objectivism (while upholding the concept of sovereignty) is very clear that it entails only those attributes which follow from its task to defend individual rights. Sovereignty resides primarily in individuals; national sovereignty draws exclusively upon the delegated power of self-defense. No one here (I think) is advocating that anyone can cross the border; the issues are whether, on the one hand, certain restrictions on the books are a just exercise of that power, and on the other whether an individual can morally disobey the unjust restrictions. Many restrictions, such as quotas, are clearly unjust, and the supposed damage to citizens by the presence of persons whose sole unlawful act is a failure to abide them is nowhere in evidence, not even considering the economic implications of the welfare state: the damage to citizens there is caused by the welfare policies themselves, not by those who avail themselves of them. What justifies a nation's arbitrary exclusion of moral, rights-respecting persons from its territory? The answer is nothing.

I would venture so far as to say that a pledge to support individual rights is a rational requirement for naturalization (in a perfect world, that would be co-extensive with a pledge to abide a nation's laws). But, it is an insurmountable leap from that to an untethered "sovereign right as a nation to determine who we allow to enter and under what conditions". National sovereignty is not the primary in this context, individual rights are. A nation is free to be irrational and unjust with its immigration policy, but not to claim the mantle of right in doing so. The power to enact unjust immigration laws certainly exists, as with any governmental abuse, but that does not make it correct to defend such abuse as a right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is certainly consistent with the historical notion of sovereignty (as is rex non potest peccare), however, Objectivism (while upholding the concept of sovereignty) is very clear that it entails only those attributes which follow from its task to defend individual rights. Sovereignty resides primarily in individuals; national sovereignty draws exclusively upon the delegated power of self-defense. No one here (I think) is advocating that anyone can cross the border; the issues are whether, on the one hand, certain restrictions on the books are a just exercise of that power, and on the other whether an individual can morally disobey the unjust restrictions. Many restrictions, such as quotas, are clearly unjust, and the supposed damage to citizens by the presence of persons whose sole unlawful act is a failure to abide them is nowhere in evidence, not even considering the economic implications of the welfare state: the damage to citizens there is caused by the welfare policies themselves, not by those who avail themselves of them. What justifies a nation's arbitrary exclusion of moral, rights-respecting persons from its territory? The answer is nothing.

I would venture so far as to say that a pledge to support individual rights is a rational requirement for naturalization (in a perfect world, that would be co-extensive with a pledge to abide a nation's laws). But, it is an insurmountable leap from that to an untethered "sovereign right as a nation to determine who we allow to enter and under what conditions". National sovereignty is not the primary in this context, individual rights are. A nation is free to be irrational and unjust with its immigration policy, but not to claim the mantle of right in doing so. The power to enact unjust immigration laws certainly exists, as with any governmental abuse, but that does not make it correct to defend such abuse as a right.

I'm pretty much in agreeance with the points made here. However, Mexico's current situation is a precarious one, and that precarious situation extends to all states currently on its border. The question is, whether the situation surrounding Mexico, the border, and the cartels hopping back and forth across the borders justifies the type of action that Arizona has taken. As both QuoVadis and I have touched on, there are some serious happenings going on in that area far beyond the normal shenanigans associated with the welfare state. Serious enough to warrant some type of action IMO, even though(if) this isn't the right one.

Edited by Markoso
Link to post
Share on other sites
Implication for actions for me is that my default is the respect for the law. That is what I want to project and advocate. That is what I want the societal standard to remain. That is what I teach my child.

I am not for acting like a martyr, either. But I do pay attention to the significance of what I am doing in the light of what I wrote above. That significance is a part of my cost/benefit analysis if you will.

I mean that they may be broken even within the context of the "rule-of-law" argument, depending on one's own cost/benefit analysis of the particular breaking situation.
Both these positions seem to say: i.e. that keeping to the rule of law is an important consideration, but not primary. Therefore, it follows, that one ought to generally keep within the rule of law, unless there is real good reason to do otherwise. Would this be a good summary of what ~Sophia~ and JASKN are saying. If so, I see your point: i.e. that the rule-of-law is a value that one has to place on the scale of cost-benefit, along with various other values.

As JASKN pointed out, there is a problem with this: i.e. what other consideration can one use in a principled way when weighing the totality? I'll admit that I do not have a well-articulated razor. I even suspect that no good and universal razor is possible, because the nature the problem is a weighing of two situations, both of which are a mix of morality and immorality.

Finally, circling back to the topic, in an earlier post, I said that even to the extent that I would adhere to immoral laws, I would not champion stricter enforcement of such laws. ~Sophia~ agreed. Why though? Wouldn't stricter enforcement reduce the extent of law-breaking and thus increase the overall rule of law, with its positive side-effects ?

Link to post
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...