Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Immigration Law in Arizona

Rate this topic


TheEgoist
 Share

Recommended Posts

One aspect of the lunacy unleashed in Arizona is all of the politically correct posturing going on. The Arizona Suns basketball team is going to change their uniform jerseys to read "Los Suns" for one game to "protest". A real act of "solidarity" would be opening admission for everyone who shows up without a ticket. (idea via Instapundit)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One aspect of the lunacy unleashed in Arizona is all of the politically correct posturing going on. The Arizona Suns basketball team is going to change their uniform jerseys to read "Los Suns" for one game to "protest". A real act of "solidarity" would be opening admission for everyone who shows up without a ticket. (idea via Instapundit)
The implication of the Instapundit idea seems to be that immigrants need something like ticket to enter the country and that the immigration visa has the moral validity of a commercial ticket. It does not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The implication of the Instapundit idea seems to be that immigrants need something like ticket to enter the country and that the immigration visa has the moral validity of a commercial ticket. It does not.

A private entity ought to have the right to discriminate among those who seek admittance whom it permits to enter its premises. The discrimination of a private entity can be quite arbitrary within rights. The discrimination of the law cannot be arbitrary, yet there is still discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A private entity ought to have the right to discriminate among those who seek admittance whom it permits to enter its premises. The discrimination of a private entity can be quite arbitrary within rights. The discrimination of the law cannot be arbitrary, yet there is still discrimination.

Yeah but Grames, you're missing the point. We who are advocating open immigration have recognized and agreed that individual owners have the right to discriminate and exclude. There can be borders, borders, and more borders, and as arbitrary even irrational as individual owners or associations of owners want and no one may trespass and indeed it is the government who is responsible for protecting those property rights. You keep equivocating between a private owner who decides to set rules for his property and the government's arbitrary restriction of owners who otherwise are willing to associate with foreigners who are not force-initiators (criminals, outlaws, diseased, terrorists, spies, etc.)

In terms of goods, we would not restrict free trade between two parties when there is a willing foreign seller and a willing inland buyer (so long as this trade does not represent an initiation of force.) So, at the same time, when there is a willing immigrant and an inlander or resident alien who is willing to receive and deal with the immigrant, we would not restrict or prohibit that trade (so long as it does not represent an initiation of force.) So this analogy between letting in people without tickets is not valid, having been freely offered a ticket for private entry is not the same as having to ask permission to obtain a visa allotted to you by government quota for passage.

A better analogy would be the basketball team offering tickets for $30 a seat, and upon finding an assortment of willing patrons, a gang of criminals comes forward threatening violence upon the basketball team if they dare sell tickets to foreigners, except those who they approve of for $50 a seat (the gang will skim the extra amount off the top), and telling those unlucky patrons who do make it inside that if they have reasonable suspicion that they might not be from around town, they will be stopped, questioned, and possibly kidnapped. This violates both the rights of the basketball team and the paying patrons.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A better analogy would be the basketball team offering tickets for $30 a seat, and upon finding an assortment of willing patrons, a gang of criminals comes forward threatening violence upon the basketball team if they dare sell tickets to foreigners, except those who they approve of for $50 a seat (the gang will skim the extra amount off the top), and telling those unlucky patrons who do make it inside that if they have reasonable suspicion that they might not be from around town, they will be stopped, questioned, and possibly kidnapped. This violates both the rights of the basketball team and the paying patrons.

So, you are equating the United States setting sensible restrictions on immigration to a gang of thugs extorting money at a basketball game? I'm calling BS. The primary responsibility of the federal government is for the security of the citizens. We have ceded them this authority under the constitution, you know, the "just consent of the governed." This does not make them "thugs," nor does sensible requirements for admission and citizenship constitute immorality. You guys are saying, out of one side of your mouth, that private individuals can have defined borders, as private property, but that the nation as a legal entity has no right to have a say over who comes in. The concept of individualism here is being taken to an extreme, dare I say to the point of fundamentalism, which is deplored in a religious context, but seems to be considered perfectly fine as a matter of "principle," and damn the practicalities. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A private entity ought to have the right to discriminate among those who seek admittance whom it permits to enter its premises. The discrimination of a private entity can be quite arbitrary within rights. The discrimination of the law cannot be arbitrary, yet there is still discrimination.

It seems like I need to repeat the question: And you own The United States... how, precisely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you are equating the United States setting sensible restrictions on immigration to a gang of thugs extorting money at a basketball game? I'm calling BS. The primary responsibility of the federal government is for the security of the citizens. We have ceded them this authority under the constitution, you know, the "just consent of the governed."

I have not consented to be "governed" with immigration restrictions, even if someone produces a constitution that says they can restrict immigration.

This does not make them "thugs," nor does sensible requirements for admission and citizenship constitute immorality.

"Because Maximus and a collection of other assorted xenophobics decided he doesn't want you in his country" isn't a sensible requirement. It's a declaration by a group of thugs and it constitutes immorality.

You guys are saying, out of one side of your mouth, that private individuals can have defined borders, as private property, but that the nation as a legal entity has no right to have a say over who comes in.

"The nation" isn't an entity, only a collection of entities (individual men) and only individual property owners have the right to exclude someone apart from the government's job to exclude force-initiators. What "the nation" thinks about that doesn't factor in to anything, they have no right to have a say in whether or not my grandmother comes to live at my parent's house, for example. This "legal entity" can kiss my ass if they don't like it.

The concept of individualism here is being taken to an extreme, dare I say to the point of fundamentalism, which is deplored in a religious context, but seems to be considered perfectly fine as a matter of "principle," and damn the practicalities. :huh:

That's an appeal to emotion, but yeah, it is extreme and fundamental and also extremely and fundamentally practical, just ask the people that want to live here but can't. Perhaps you might be more comfortable here.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concept of individualism here is being taken to an extreme, dare I say to the point of fundamentalism, which is deplored in a religious context, but seems to be considered perfectly fine as a matter of "principle," and damn the practicalities. :huh:

In politics, also, pragmatism presents itself as opposed to “rigidity,” to “dogma,” to “extremes” of any kind (whether capitalist or socialist); it avows that it is relativist, “moderate,” “experimental.” As in ethics, however, so here: the pragmatist is compelled to employ some kind of standard to evaluate the results of his social experiments, a standard which, given his own self-imposed default, he necessarily absorbs from other, non-pragmatist trend-setters .

- Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 128

"'Extreme' is a term pertaining to measurement, it is an issue of measurement, of degree. Therefore you cannot use the word 'Extreme' with moral connotations. You cannot claim that an extreme is good or bad, you cannot use it as a term of a problem, as a derogatory term because measurement as such has no value significance, it can acquire it only from the nature of that which you measure. And it is an absurdity to claim that an extreme degree of anything -regardless of its nature- is evil. Yet that is what is attempted by the use of the term 'extremism.' The reason of why it is a smear term is precisely because of the particular usage to which it is put. If there were no particular usage, it would be meaningless, but it is always used as a derogatory term to imply that an action or an idea is evil merely because it is extreme. That is intellectually irrational and in practical terms you can see its workings: it is used only to smear somebody, to accuse anybody without evidence, proof or definition. It is like a swear word to attach to somebody as a label without the necessity of defining why you are attacking a person, what you are accusing him of."

--Ayn Rand Interviewed, The Enemies of “Extremism”--

I concur with the numerical one. Ideologically, you are best suited for the elephants, it seems.

Edited by kainscalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you are equating the United States setting sensible restrictions on immigration to a gang of thugs extorting money at a basketball game? I'm calling BS. The primary responsibility of the federal government is for the security of the citizens. We have ceded them this authority under the constitution, you know, the "just consent of the governed." This does not make them "thugs," nor does sensible requirements for admission and citizenship constitute immorality. You guys are saying, out of one side of your mouth, that private individuals can have defined borders, as private property, but that the nation as a legal entity has no right to have a say over who comes in. The concept of individualism here is being taken to an extreme, dare I say to the point of fundamentalism, which is deplored in a religious context, but seems to be considered perfectly fine as a matter of "principle," and damn the practicalities. :huh:

1. It isn't equating. It is the fact of the matter. Because one organization is seen as legitimate in strong-arming, robbing, depriving freedom and murdering and another isn't seen as legitimate, doesn't make the first objectively legitimate. It just means more people are willing to accept it.

2. Why are you on this forum, if you do not accept individualism as a principle? Certainly there is room in Objectivism for disagreement, but calling one of its core virtues "impractical"? If you aren't arguing from the standpoint of individualism and individual rights, I think everyone here has right to disregard your arguments.

It should surprise no one here that holding to such outdated, xenophobic, perhaps Malthusian beliefs/fears about immigration will lead to such atrocious conclusions, even the rejection of the individual as an absolute.

No one here, from what I can see, has a religion of individualism. We are fundamentalists insofar as we hold to the fundamentals of our position, and we come to that position by reason. Unfortunately, you are being the arch pragmatist. Also unfortunately, your arguments aren't even all that pragmatic. This nation will wither and die faster than it already is without a high immigrant population, and it will be the fault of men who refused to stand on principle.

Thanks a lot, Maximus and the Republican party. You're killing America! :lol::huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like I need to repeat the question: And you own The United States... how, precisely?

The non-arbitrary discrimination of the law against criminals, terrorists and infectious disease carriers is not justified by the principle of ownership, true. But then, it doesn't need to be so this objection is not effective.

The gesture by the Phoenix Suns basketball team is an ad hominem, a smear against the motives of all who supported the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The non-arbitrary discrimination of the law against criminals, terrorists and infectious disease carriers is not justified by the principle of ownership, true. But then, it doesn't need to be so this objection is not effective.

So if the rest is arbitrary discrimination, then unless you own the entire United States, the objection stands. Maybe your conception of "interventionism" and "restricted immigration" subsumes enforcement of objective law by a government, and your conception of "free immigration" subsumes the trespassers, criminals, and lepers, etc. and your conception of "free speech" subsumes death threats, and your conception of "free trade" subsumes theft or something? Mine doesn't, so I'm perfectly happy with saying that you don't own the whole United States and therefore don't have a right to decide that free immigration, nor free trade, nor free speech, nor the free excercise of any act which doesn't initiate a process of force or fraud should be restricted.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the rest is arbitrary discrimination, then unless you own the entire United States, the objection stands. Maybe your conception of "interventionism" and "restricted immigration" subsumes enforcement of objective law by a government, and your conception of "free immigration" subsumes the trespassers, criminals, and lepers, etc. and your conception of "free speech" subsumes death threats, and your conception of "free trade" subsumes theft or something? Mine doesn't, so I'm perfectly happy with saying that you don't own the whole United States and therefore don't have a right to decide that free immigration, nor free trade, nor free speech, nor the free excercise of any act which doesn't initiate a process of force or fraud should be restricted.

If you think the Phoenix Suns are making a principled stand in favor of free immigration as we understand it then you are naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think the Phoenix Suns are making a principled stand in favor of free immigration as we understand it then you are naive.

Yes, because clearly my whole argument was based on the moral character of the Phoenix Suns basketball team.

Come on man, you can do bettter. You know damn well the difference between pointing out a false analogy by a conservative pajama blogger from defending a bunch of left-liberal basket ballers' silly antics.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The non-arbitrary discrimination of the law against criminals, terrorists and infectious disease carriers is not justified by the principle of ownership, true. But then, it doesn't need to be so this objection is not effective.

The gesture by the Phoenix Suns basketball team is an ad hominem, a smear against the motives of all who supported the law.

Not really. I don't know what the GM of the Suns is thinking, but it could just as well be an attack on the effects of this law. This law will in fact cause mostly Mexicans and other Spanish speakers who have committed no actual crimes to be picked up by the Police and removed from the country, all this in clear violation of their rights. Symbolically siding with those victims might have nothing to do with anyone's rationalizations as to why they are persecuting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. It isn't equating. It is the fact of the matter. Because one organization is seen as legitimate in strong-arming, robbing, depriving freedom and murdering and another isn't seen as legitimate, doesn't make the first objectively legitimate. It just means more people are willing to accept it.

We are not depriving anyone of freedom because of immigration laws. The process should be made streamlined, but still, control needs to be in place.

2. Why are you on this forum, if you do not accept individualism as a principle? Certainly there is room in Objectivism for disagreement, but calling one of its core virtues "impractical"? If you aren't arguing from the standpoint of individualism and individual rights, I think everyone here has right to disregard your arguments.

So now I am a heretic? Would you have me burned at the stake? I have just as much "right" to post here as any. I am not trolling or flaming, I simply disagree on the issue of immigration. Individual rights can only be protected under the auspices of a duly elected government and a system of laws. Try asserting your rights in Yemen or Somolia and see what happens.

It should surprise no one here that holding to such outdated, xenophobic, perhaps Malthusian beliefs/fears about immigration will lead to such atrocious conclusions, even the rejection of the individual as an absolute.

This is an assumption of my motives and character. Nowhere in this thread, or anywhere else on this entire board have I said "gots to keep dem brown folks out, they is nasty." The law applies to all, Europeans included. As a Cherokee, I don't see how you think I would have a problem with dark skin.

No one here, from what I can see, has a religion of individualism. We are fundamentalists insofar as we hold to the fundamentals of our position, and we come to that position by reason. Unfortunately, you are being the arch pragmatist. Also unfortunately, your arguments aren't even all that pragmatic. This nation will wither and die faster than it already is without a high immigrant population, and it will be the fault of men who refused to stand on principle.

I am not a pragmatist, but a realist. I can see that, conditions being what they are at present, that unrestricted immigration would result in people flooding in from every nation on earth to glom on to the welfare state. This has already been argued by others here such as Athena, yet I do not see them being excoriated in a personal manner. Also, nowhere have I called for no immigration whatsoever, so I don't know what orifice you pulled that one out of.

Thanks a lot, Maximus and the Republican party. You're killing America! :huh::huh:

For the 100th time, I am not a Republican. :lol:

This perfectly illustrates my comparison to fundamentalism. disagree on one point and you suddenly are labeled a heretic. No difference between this and the way the medieval Catholic Inquisition operated, except you have no power to put me to the question.

Edited by Maximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. I don't know what the GM of the Suns is thinking, but it could just as well be an attack on the effects of this law. This law will in fact cause mostly Mexicans and other Spanish speakers who have committed no actual crimes to be picked up by the Police and removed from the country, all this in clear violation of their rights. Symbolically siding with those victims might have nothing to do with anyone's rationalizations as to why they are persecuting them.

It will not, as there had to be a crime committed in the first place. No one will be picked up for driving Brown. You have not read the law, obviously. This is the same thing the loony leftists are saying.

Edited by Maximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends upon what those restrictions are.The nature of those restrictions are of essence in characterizing them.

Yes. What I am saying is that the restrictions must be sensible. There are certain ideologies, promoted by certain countries and religions, that must be taken into consideration when examining an persons request for admittance. Someone who is an Islamic fundamentalist and recently visited Waziristan, for instance. Likely probability is that this person may be a terrorist. To not vet would be foolish and naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. What I am saying is that the restrictions must be sensible. There are certain ideologies, promoted by certain countries and religions, that must be taken into consideration when examining an persons request for admittance. Someone who is an Islamic fundamentalist and recently visited Waziristan, for instance. Likely probability is that this person may be a terrorist. To not vet would be foolish and naive.
The problem with the current system (as opposed to a theoretical one) is that it provides visas to folk who want to do the U.S. harm, while unjustly denying visas to millions of Mexicans.

Moving to a system that is not so grossly unjust toward lower-income people who want to make a living would actually make the system far more secure. Two birds with one stone. Keeping the system as unjust as it is encourages millions to flaunt the law, allows criminal gangs to gain power along the border (much like prohibition times), and greatly increases the ability for a terrorist to sneak in to the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the current system (as opposed to a theoretical one) is that it provides visas to folk who want to do the U.S. harm, while unjustly denying visas to millions of Mexicans.

Moving to a system that is not so grossly unjust toward lower-income people who want to make a living would actually make the system far more secure. Two birds with one stone. Keeping the system as unjust as it is encourages millions to flaunt the law, allows criminal gangs to gain power along the border (much like prohibition times), and greatly increases the ability for a terrorist to sneak in to the U.S.

I agree 100%. Thank you for being reasonable. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will not, as there had to be a crime committed in the first place. No one will be picked up for driving Brown. You have not read the law, obviously. This is the same thing the loony leftists are saying.

The Objectivist definition of crime is violation of rights through initiation of force against others. That is what I mean by the word. If you can't figure out what that means, stop reading my posts, you won't understand them.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...