Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Immigration Law in Arizona

Rate this topic


TheEgoist

Recommended Posts

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.

Nice way to evade the question altogether, Maximus. Or to even ignore the fact that by restricting immigration to anyone outside of criminals and terrorists, you are violating individual rights. Your own argument contradicts itself.

Edited by kainscalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fah. I have to go to work now, and do something productive. You two continue in my absence within your echo chamber.

Are we to believe you must be at your wits' end (no long journey indeed) if instead of facing your contradiction you result to weak insinuations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how dropping the context of all of America's other laws helps this discussion. Free immigration is a right that I happen to agree with, but I agree with Arizona's law in the context of all the other laws on the books. There is a move, for those of us not paying attention, to "legalize" illegal aliens in this country. That isn't just a feel-good recognition that they're here and howdy; it's a drive to provide them with certain "positive rights," in the words of our democratically elected President, the chief among these being the "right" to force (by gov't proxy) other citizens to pay your way through life. But, it's not just a matter of people coming over to get their share of my wealth through immoral socialist laws. I believe that most illegals are here to earn their livings honestly, and that their work benefits me.

However, the powers that be want to "legalize" illegals, and that will result immediately in a decrease in their value to me: Social security and medicare will impose an immediate 15.3% tariff on their labor; state and federal income and unemployment taxes will add to that tariff; and the additional cost of accurate bookkeeping and payroll services on businesses will add even more, regressively impacting smaller businesses harder. What happens then? The former illegals find themselves at a disadvantage of upwards of 20% in effective wage earning potential compared to tomorrow's wave of illegal immigrants. Let's face it, if the last wave of illegals, which was legalized in 1986, could have avoided the weight of federal and state tariffs on their income, and did not have social programs to fall back on, there would be far fewer opportunities to attract the current wave.

What should happen is that immigrant workers be allowed to enter the nation and get whatever work they are willing to take. They should not be granted citizenship, which is a contract made by the government on behalf of current citizens, and which bestows certain benefits and requires certain obligations in return. Regardless of how you feel about those benefits and obligations, and I believe we are all in agreement that anything other than protecting our individual rights is invalid, those exist and we have to consider them in our consideration of the subject.

I would just like to point out the free migration across borders may be a right espoused by Objectivists, but only if those immigrants are willing to take and abide by an oath that is familiar to us all. That small detail is not being addressed here. If it were, I believe we would all fall in agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we to believe you must be at your wits' end (no long journey indeed) if instead of facing your contradiction you result to weak insinuations?

No, I had to go to work. Just got home. It was not a metaphor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What should happen is that immigrant workers be allowed to enter the nation and get whatever work they are willing to take. They should not be granted citizenship, which is a contract made by the government on behalf of current citizens, and which bestows certain benefits and requires certain obligations in return.

It's not a contract. A contract is an agreement between two parties. Let's not confuse laws with contracts.

And the supposed underlying cause for those welfare laws are human rights. If one human has the right to free healthcare, every human does. The only way you're going to convince any collectivist that Mexicans don't have to be given that right, is by first convincing them that they don't belong among us, they are so different and incompatible that they necessarily belong to a different collective, and are the responsibility of that collective to take care of them. And that is the path Republicans are taking.

I would just like to point out the free migration across borders may be a right espoused by Objectivists, but only if those immigrants are willing to take and abide by an oath that is familiar to us all.

If you're referring to the Oath of Allegiance, that is the oath new citizens have to take already, but why would the Objectivist position be that immigrants should have to take a ridiculous oath about their submission to slavery, especially one that ends in an absurd religious statement?

As for the Pledge of Allegiance, if that's what you mean, I'm sure they would prefer to take that one, since it's more tame, but again, it is kinda ironic that you have to say a mantra, and deny reason by affirming the existence of God, in order to pledge your allegiance to a supposedly free country.

By the way, a fun fact: the introduction of that pledge(1890's) roughly corresponds with the introduction of socialism and anti immigration laws into the once free and pledge-less country, and he introduction of "under God" into the pledge(1950's) corresponds with the introduction of religion into the once God-free government.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a contract. A contract is an agreement between two parties. Let's not confuse laws with contracts.

When an immigrant applies for and gets citizenship, he is agreeing to accept the benefits of the United States and her Government, and in exchange:

[to] absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which [he has] heretofore been a subject or citizen; that [he] will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that [he] will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that [he] will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that [he] will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that [he] will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that [he] take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; [affirmed].

This is a voluntary agreement between the new citizen and the government of the United States, and is therefore a contract.

And the supposed underlying cause for those welfare laws are human rights. If one human has the right to free healthcare, every human does. The only way you're going to convince any collectivist that Mexicans don't have to be given that right, is by first convincing them that they don't belong among us, they are so different and incompatible that they necessarily belong to a different collective, and are the responsibility of that collective to take care of them. And that is the path Republicans are taking.

I think we're in general agreement here, that given the definition of "rights" enforced by the Democrats in our laws, the Republicans are objecting to allowing uncontrolled access by immigrants to those "rights." Since those "rights" include the "right" to plunder one man's wealth to pay for another's life, the Republicans are rightly trying to limit the number of people in on the plunder. Once the gun has been drawn and aimed at a man with property, that man's objections should not be confused for a philosophical debate, but seen as the ethics of an emergency.

If you're referring to the Oath of Allegiance, that is the oath new citizens have to take already, but why would the Objectivist position be that immigrants should have to take a ridiculous oath about their submission to slavery, especially one that ends in an absurd religious statement?

As for the Pledge of Allegiance, if that's what you mean, I'm sure they would prefer to take that one, since it's more tame, but again, it is kinda ironic that you have to say a mantra, and deny reason by affirming the existence of God, in order to pledge your allegiance to a supposedly free country.

By the way, a fun fact: the introduction of that pledge(1890's) roughly corresponds with the introduction of socialism and anti immigration laws into the once free and pledge-less country, and he introduction of "under God" into the pledge(1950's) corresponds with the introduction of religion into the once God-free government.

The Pledge was not officially sanctioned as the national pledge until 1942. The inclusion of "under God" in 1954 was, in part, to differentiate the U.S. from the Soviet Union, a God-less regime, that I'm sure you wouldn't defend on the grounds of its (enforced) atheist ideology, any more than you would defend the U.S. on the grounds of its (un-enforced) Judeo-Christian ideology. But we digress...

By "us all" I mean us here on this forum. The Oath I'm referring to is one I hope you recognize:

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Unless we're willing to demand the essence of this oath as a precondition for immigration, there is no moral basis for demanding that borders be open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a voluntary agreement between the new citizen and the government of the United States, and is therefore a contract.

Sorry, I though you were referring to citizenship in general being a contract, in the social contract sense. I misread your post.

the Republicans are rightly trying to limit the number of people in on the plunder

That is not an accurate characterization of anti immigration laws. The Republicans are trying to remove Mexicans from the country. That is what they're doing.

As for the idea that by doing that, their goal is to reduce the welfare state, the same can be said for a serial killer murdering people at random. The end does not justify the means.

Besides, it should be pretty obvious by now that the Republicans' attempts at removing those Mexicans are a total failure.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're in general agreement here, that given the definition of "rights" enforced by the Democrats in our laws, the Republicans are objecting to allowing uncontrolled access by immigrants to those "rights." Since those "rights" include the "right" to plunder one man's wealth to pay for another's life, the Republicans are rightly trying to limit the number of people in on the plunder. Once the gun has been drawn and aimed at a man with property, that man's objections should not be confused for a philosophical debate, but seen as the ethics of an emergency.

This is a good insight. Collectivism creates the tragic situation of the impossibility of people living together in peace. What is doubly tragic is that many of those people objecting themselves endorse various collectivist ideas, and so cause their own fate just like a literary tragic flaw brings about the downfall of a character in a story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're in general agreement here, that given the definition of "rights" enforced by the Democrats in our laws, the Republicans are objecting to allowing uncontrolled access by immigrants to those "rights." Since those "rights" include the "right" to plunder one man's wealth to pay for another's life, the Republicans are rightly trying to limit the number of people in on the plunder.
This is not the generally-held Republican position. Of course, there are must be some who think that; but, not a majority. A majority of Republicans are not in favor of dismantling public education, winding down Mediaid, ending welfare, and so on. This seems like a personal projection of motives, which are not the actual motives of the majority of anti-immigrant protesters. If the majority of Republicans thought the way you hypothesize, the country would not be where it is today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not an accurate characterization of anti immigration laws. The Republicans are trying to remove Mexicans from the country. That is what they're doing.

As for the idea that by doing that, their goal is to reduce the welfare state, the same can be said for a serial killer murdering people at random. The end does not justify the means.

Besides, it should be pretty obvious by now that the Republicans' attempts at removing those Mexicans are a total failure.

They are trying to remove Mexicans from the country in the context of a push to legalize those illegals living in the country, that is, to add illegal immigrants to the roles of the plundering looters. (Not that that's what characterizes the illegals, but what the result will naturally be for many illegals). Removing trespassers is not akin to murdering people at random. Easy to make such a point, a little harder to defend it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not the generally-held Republican position. Of course, there are must be some who think that; but, not a majority. A majority of Republicans are not in favor of dismantling public education, winding down Mediaid, ending welfare, and so on. This seems like a personal projection of motives, which are not the actual motives of the majority of anti-immigrant protesters. If the majority of Republicans thought the way you hypothesize, the country would not be where it is today.

So your projection is more valid than mine? How do you back that up? I think it's fair to say that most people who are against legalizing illegals are concerned about the added burden on our social programs. I'd say a large number of people in this country recognize the utter failure of public education, of Medicaid, welfare, and so on. Those people are probably overwhelmingly supporters of Republicans, though probably not lockstep with Republicans. If there were a third party that supported individual economic rights and individual social rights, I think you'd see a huge number of "republican" voters switch over, and a large number of "democratic" voters, as well. You're not going to get a defense of Republicans from this independent, but you are going to get a defense of their ostensive (and ostensive only) opposition to "comprehensive immigration reform" (i.e., amnesty), in the context of the current welfare state and populist democratic (small 'd') control of our government.

How the majority of "republicans" thinks is probably closer to what I hypothesize than to the way elected members of the Republican Party act! Unfortunately, we have a one-party, dual-wing system in this country, in my opinion.

On edit:

I would like to clarify that I support the right of people to come across our borders and take any jobs we're not willing to take ourselves. I believe that is good for everyone. What I object to is the pandering to immigrants with promises of "positive" "rights" by the Left, and of the immediate surcharge on labor that illegals will face when they are legalized, and which simply lifts their wage requirements high enough to incentivize the next wave of illegals into the country.

Edited by agrippa1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are trying to remove Mexicans from the country in the context of a push to legalize those illegals living in the country, that is, to add illegal immigrants to the roles of the plundering looters. (Not that that's what characterizes the illegals, but what the result will naturally be for many illegals). Removing trespassers is not akin to murdering people at random. Easy to make such a point, a little harder to defend it.

I didn't say murdering people at random (or murdering Mexicans) was akin to removing people from the country. I said that murdering people at random causes a reduction in the welfare state the same way removing them does. It's not hard to defend, it's pretty obvious.

What's hard to defend is your position, that anti immigration laws are right in the context of present day America. The way you tried to defend it was by pretending that their supposed ultimate goal justifies their means. That is a fallacious argument.

Removing trespassers

Trespassing is the specific crime of entering private property without permission. The United States is not private property, so they're definitely not removing trespassers. They're removing immigrants who have committed no crimes.

They are trying to remove Mexicans from the country in the context of a push to legalize those illegals living in the country, that is, to add illegal immigrants to the roles of the plundering looters. (Not that that's what characterizes the illegals, but what the result will naturally be for many illegals).

The proposition that denying others their freedom will result in more freedom for you is not very sound. In reality, what your move to use force against Mexican immigrants will do is cause them, and 47 million Americans with Latin American origins, to do the same to you (for one, by voting Democrat, but I'm sure that won't be the extent of their reaction). If Republicans want to fight it out with the Mexicans, for their entitlements, best of luck to them. I don't think they'll win.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your projection is more valid than mine? How do you back that up?
Look at what the Republican's do. I offered examples of areas. Many of the worst laws in the country have had Republican blessing. Witness how Bush expanded Medicaid, and turned the focus of schools toward the least-capable. Witness how Republican Congress ran up deficits just as Democrats do. There is no evidence to suggest that: "If there were a third party that supported individual economic rights and individual social rights, I think you'd see a huge number of "republican" voters switch over, and a large number of "democratic" voters, as well." The evidence shows that third parties that have had some success have never questioned the underlying assumptions of the welfare state; the plans they suggest sound like something that moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats might thrash out if they did not grid-lock.

I know lots of moderate everyday Democrats who object to illegal immigration. I would agree that many Republicans and Democrats who object to illegal do so because they themselves have bought into the notion of the welfare state, but recognize that it is a cost to them. They see more Mexicans coming here as being "more poor people" and therefore "more welfare". The vast number of moderate Republicans and Democrats would think this way.

However, I do not know if this a major component of their thinking. I doubt they would welcome a plan that (say) would allow millions of young, single, childless Mexican construction workers to come to the U.S. on work visas. Their rationalization about welfare is likely to be only one part of what they feel.

And, many have racist motives as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Previously, in Arizona, when the police made "legal contact" with a person, did they ask for identification, etc...? If they did, what happened to those who couldn't provide it? I lived in Arizona once, near the border, by Sierra Vista, and I don't remember the police being hampered when it came to asking people for identification. If it is true, that prior to the law just passed in Arizona, police could already ask for identification during stops, arrests, etc., and could transfer illegals to immigration control, then what is the purpose the new law?

Edited by RussK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too often, police departments would ignore immigration status, believing that it was the feds sole responsibility, or that nothing would be done anyway. All the new law did was to codify federal law into state law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say murdering people at random (or murdering Mexicans) was akin to removing people from the country. I said that murdering people at random causes a reduction in the welfare state the same way removing them does. It's not hard to defend, it's pretty obvious.

As for the idea that by doing that, their goal is to reduce the welfare state, the same can be said for a serial killer murdering people at random.

Using that statement, conflates both means to the same ends then uses the following statement ("The ends does not justify the means") to conflate the irrationality of murder to the removal of illegal entrants. So, while you didn't state specifically that murder is "akin" to removal, you certainly used it implicitly in your argument. If I said that murdering sick people causes the same ends as quarantining them, would you get the idea?

What's hard to defend is your position, that anti immigration laws are right in the context of present day America. The way you tried to defend it was by pretending that their supposed ultimate goal justifies their means. That is a fallacious argument.

Actually what I mean to say is that the ends of illegal entry into the nation justifies the action of preventing illegal entry. This is not a moral argument for removing illegals, as morality does not exist at the point of a gun, and we are at the point of a gun. Removing illegal entrants is more akin to preventing more looters from entering a city being systematically looted by a ruling gang.

Trespassing is the specific crime of entering private property without permission. The United States is not private property, so they're definitely not removing trespassers. They're removing immigrants who have committed no crimes.

I'll leave aside the assertion that only private property is subject to trespassing laws. (Try strolling onto a publicly owned military base, if you don't get that)

But, if the United States were governed according to Objectivist precepts, wouldn't it be devoid of public land, and therefore the private property of the citizens? Wouldn't roads, for instance, be privately owned, possibly under a neighborhood pact by multiple neighbors, with the right to drive on those roads granted by the owners? Aren't you falling into the same trap of accepting collectivist precepts in your justification of illegal entry into a nation?

The proposition that denying others their freedom will result in more freedom for you is not very sound.

This is not about freedom, it's about spreading the wealth around. Denying others the right to take my property to pay for their lives will most certainly result in more freedom for all of us.

In reality, what your move to use force against Mexican immigrants will do is cause them, and 47 million Americans with Latin American origins, to do the same to you (for one, by voting Democrat, but I'm sure that won't be the extent of their reaction). If Republicans want to fight it out with the Mexicans, for their entitlements, best of luck to them. I don't think they'll win.

Using force against an illegal entrant is not, as any Objectivist knows, the initiation of force against him. Entering property without the owner's consent constitutes the initiation of force.

I think you'd be surprised at how many Americans with Latin origins see the illegal entrants as a threat to the livelihoods they've built for themselves through hard work and perseverance. But that's a very pragmatic argument you present, and it belies at least a partial consideration for the political costs of standing on principle. If you don't support giving them citizenship, then when they do, they'll retaliate against you and take your property. Nice moral argument.

Look at what the Republican's do. I offered examples of areas. Many of the worst laws in the country have had Republican blessing.

Again, I'm talking about people who voted republican, not the people who ran as republicans. The latter are members of the same party as the Democrat leaders, they work with each other and the press to rig the laws to keep competition out. They survive on the balance of issues, finding and fixing issues that more or less equally polarize the electorate, and adapting their positions and their rules against third parties, to make them nothing more than spoilers for one or the other party.

If we had simple reforms, like term limits, majority election requirements and run-off elections, the citizens could vote their conscience, rather than triangulating on one or the other party to get the "best" result. We are in agreement that the government is corrupt.

And, many have racist motives as well.

Whereas those who, when hearing about the unfair treatment of illegal aliens, immediately think "latinos," are not racist! And they're not racist when they immediately group all latinos, legal and illegal, together into one oppressed group, and assume that since people who are against illegal immigration must be racist (after all, the conflation was obvious to you!), they therefore must hate all latinos regardless of their immigration status.

Let's not even discuss the use of race as the self-defining characteristic of the most vocal illegal immigration proponents. No, let's not talk about "La Raza" and its implications, and certainly, let's not let ourselves define illegals in the terms in which the most vocal define themselves, unless it's to impugn the motives of those who stand against illegal immigration on the basis of the act, not the pigmentation of the actor!

If you're going to call me a racist for my view, call me, don't conflate me. Don't talk about "many" and "motives."

(edit: punct)

Edited by agrippa1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not about freedom, it's about spreading the wealth around. Denying others the right to take my property to pay for their lives will most certainly result in more freedom for all of us.

With respect to any illegal immigrants receiving welfare, it is not they who are taking your property, but your own government, sanctioned by those who have created the welfare state. The same is true with respect to any citizen or legal immigrant who receives welfare.

Using force against an illegal entrant is not, as any Objectivist knows, the initiation of force against him. Entering property without the owner's consent constitutes the initiation of force.

Initiating the use of force against anyone, including illegal immigrants, is the initiation of force against him, a violation of his rights. A nation is not the property of its citizens or its government. Those who use force, even legally, to stop anyone from immigrating, anyone who is not a legitimate threat (of initiating force against any individuals), are the ones who are violating rights, the rights of those who want to immigrate and those who would welcome them.

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Break!

We're making counter assertions with no gain on the discussion.

I would assert that a person who accepts social benefits, in the knowledge that the government is attaining those benefits through the initiation of force, is guilty/complicit of the initiation of force.

That is a much broader issue, but it subsumes the illegal entry issue, in my opinion, and if true, justifies the opposition to illegal entry on moral grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using that statement, conflates both means to the same ends then uses the following statement ("The ends does not justify the means") to conflate the irrationality of murder to the removal of illegal entrants. So, while you didn't state specifically that murder is "akin" to removal, you certainly used it implicitly in your argument. If I said that murdering sick people causes the same ends as quarantining them, would you get the idea?

Murdering sick people prevents the spread of disease, just like quarantining them does. That doesn't make quarantine akin to murder. But claiming that a person quarantining people is "preventing disease" is not accurate. He is quarantining people to prevent disease. At that point, we look at whether the use of force, in the action of quarantining a sick person, is justified or not: it is, if force is only used against people who have a contagious, deadly disease, because their movement would in itself constitute initiation of force.

Similarly, you cannot say this law is reducing the welfare state. At best, it removes Mexicans from the country to reduce the welfare state. At this point, you have to look at whether the action itself, removing Mexicans, is a legitimate use of force. Instead, you ignored the action, and replaced it with the consequence. You pretended that the consequence is what needs to be legitimate, in order to justify the action. That is not logical. Is the action itself, against individual immigrants, initiation of force, or retaliation?

I think you'd be surprised at how many Americans with Latin origins see the illegal entrants as a threat to the livelihoods they've built for themselves through hard work and perseverance. But that's a very pragmatic argument you present, and it belies at least a partial consideration for the political costs of standing on principle. If you don't support giving them citizenship, then when they do, they'll retaliate against you and take your property. Nice moral argument.

Let's pretend I'm a Mexican currently working, without a work permit, on a farm in the US. I am asking you about what moral principle should guide my interactions with other human beings. What would your answer be?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assert that a person who accepts social benefits, in the knowledge that the government is attaining those benefits through the initiation of force, is guilty/complicit of the initiation of force.

That is not correct. Are you initiating force, violating rights, by driving on public highways? Going to or sending your child to "public" schools?

Accepting "social benefits" (welfare, wealth redistributed via government force) is not an initiation of the use of force. The government is the initiator of force with respect to any such redistributions of wealth.

Yes, it is wrong, what the government is doing; yes, it is a violation of rights, but it is a violation of rights on the part of or by the government.

Any individual who attempts to "redistribute" wealth is a criminal, in a proper society, and the government should act to stop them; it should not itself engage in such violations of rights.

Of course, government violates rights with the approval of some, perhaps even most, individuals in society. They are the ones responsible for such a state of affairs. The government is redistributing wealth with their blessings, violating the rights of some (even many or most) for the supposed interest of others. Such is a rejection of the principle of individual rights.

See "Government Grants and Scholarships"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using force against an illegal entrant is not, as any Objectivist knows, the initiation of force against him. Entering property without the owner's consent constitutes the initiation of force.
No, this is a complete misunderstanding of Objectivism. Actually, Objectivism says that morality must inform legality, not the other way around.

I think you'd be surprised at how many Americans with Latin origins see the illegal entrants as a threat to the livelihoods they've built for themselves through hard work and perseverance. But that's a very pragmatic argument you present, and it belies at least a partial consideration for the political costs of standing on principle. If you don't support giving them citizenship, then when they do, they'll retaliate against you and take your property. Nice moral argument.
It does not surprise me. As a legal immigrant myself, I know that it is extremely common for legal immigrants to be against illegal immigrants. At a moral level, many legals think that they came to the U.S. following the law, so others should as well. In thinking this, they comfortably evade that the law was tailored to their particular circumstance, and that most of the illegals had no legal way to come by that route. Also, some legal immigrants take a pragmatic approach, fearful that anger directed toward illegals will also end up being directed at all immigrants, including themselves. I have even been told an Objectivist who came to the U.S. illegally (albeit when very young), and was legalized years ago, that things are different now. So, no, it does not surprise me that people simply want "the problem to go away".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's pretend I'm a Mexican currently working, without a work permit, on a farm in the US. I am asking you about what moral principle should guide my interactions with other human beings. What would your answer be?

"Exchange the value of your goods and services voluntarily with other human beings, and don't accept benefits from the government that are gotten through the use of force against your fellow citizens. If you accept this advice, then I have no objections to you being here and contributing to our economy, and I will fight for your right to stay here. And, thank you for doing so."

Let's pretend that a legalized immigrant would not immediately face a 25% surcharge on the cost of his labor due to FICA, Medicare, unemp taxes and administrative costs. Let's further pretend that there are no social programs in this country that some proportion of illegal immigrants will take advantage of when they are granted amnesty. In that case, I also have no objections.

Now let's pretend that our pretend games have only a limited applicability to real problems. In other words, let's not pretend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Exchange the value of your goods and services voluntarily with other human beings, and don't accept benefits from the government that are gotten through the use of force against your fellow citizens. If you accept this advice, then I have no objections to you being here and contributing to our economy, and I will fight for your right to stay here. And, thank you for doing so."

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?

Now let's pretend that our pretend games have only a limited applicability to real problems. In other words, let's not pretend.

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.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
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...