Immigration Law in Arizona

[agrippa1]

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

Since the blacks are (presumably) resident citizens, there are two differences I see.

First, excluding blacks is inherently racist. Excluding immigrant who illegally enter, but not immigrants who legally enter is not racist. That is, it is not a policy that discriminates based on race, but based on behavior. The implicit assertion is that because illegal aliens are, in large proportion, not of a uniform skin pigmentation, therefore opposition to illegal immigration is necessarily racist. This argument represents the Correlation Fallacy: "Because most illegal immigrants are brown, their brownness is the cause of opposition to illegal immigration." A related argument, that because "many have racism as their motive" in opposing illegal immigration, therefore opposition to immigration is wrong. This is Argument from Fallacy, and is equally invalid.

Second, black citizens are part (if they can be fairly characterizes as such) of the existing problem. Illegal immigrants represent an exacerbation of the existing problem. Seeing the illegal immigration issue as one of illegals currently living in the U.S. is denying or evading the ongoing process of illegal immigration. A lot of people look at the logistical problems with deporting all the illegals, and come to the conclusion that the illegals should be granted amnesty because it's impossible to deport them all. Suppose we all agree to that, then what about the next wave, should they just be let in and given citizenship?

[kainscalia]

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

Please show us your deed of ownership to the whole united states or, failing that, at least the whole terrain of the border.

[Maximus]

So, we are back once again to "individuals have a right to keep people off of their privately owned property, but the national government, despite being a legal entity representing the populace, has no such right because no one owns the entire country."

Jeebus H. Crispy!

There is something really wrong with that entire concept.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Maximus

[agrippa1]

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

Please read Miss Rand's "Collectivized Rights."

You mean this:

Any group or “collective,” large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. In a free society, the “rights” of any group are derived from the rights of its members through their voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement, and are merely the application of these individual rights to a specific undertaking. Every legitimate group undertaking is based on the participants’ right of free association and free trade. (By “legitimate,” I mean: noncriminal and freely formed, that is, a group which no one was forced to join.)

in which she asserts that there are some, limited, collective rights, which are derived from the rights of the individuals in the collective?

Do citizens of a free nation have the right to be protected from the initiation of force? Is trespassing on the land of the nation, without the permission of the national government, as specified by objective law, the initiation of force?

[2046]

in which she asserts that there are some, limited, collective rights, which are derived from the rights of the individuals in the collective?

No, you're missing the whole point. There are not two categories of rights, there is only the right of an individual to do X, from which follows the right of two individuals to do X.

Is trespassing on the land of the nation, without the permission of the national government, as specified by objective law, the initiation of force?

Who is this "the nation" and how did he get to own the entire United States? Do you mean the collection of individual property owners in the United States? This may be a surprise, but some of them want foriegners on their property, so you don't have a right to call yourself "the nation" and keep them out and pretend that is anything but a blatant initiation of force.

[Trebor]

Since the blacks are (presumably) resident citizens, there are two differences I see.

...

If people are quite willing to violate the principle of individual rights by forcibly stopping the immigration of individuals who pose no threat to the rights of anyone, as well as the rights of those individuals who would welcome them, then why should they draw the line at race? If rights are out, then it's deuces wild, anything goes, there's no reason respect or protect individual rights.

If we're to be pragmatists and hold that our primary concern, with respect to illegal immigration, should be to alleviate further burdens on the welfare state, a burden not created by immigrants but by the citizens and government with a policy of violating the rights of individuals who are forced to support the welfare state in the name of the rights of the group ("society") to determine if there is to be a welfare state, who is to be a recipient and who is to provide it, then again, why draw the line on race?

Since the principle of individual rights is out on principle, since it is to be subordinated to the desires of the group (the majority?), perhaps we need a policy of forced sterilization for those who are likely to have offspring who receive welfare?

Edited May 10, 2010 by Trebor

[2046]

So, we are back once again to "individuals have a right to keep people off of their privately owned property, but the national government, despite being a legal entity representing the populace, has no such right because no one owns the entire country."

Jeebus H. Crispy!

There is something really wrong with that entire concept.

Any that would be what? That Maximus and agrippa1 get to decide what I do with my life and my property because they get to pretend what they want is what "the nation" wants, and that I must submit to their imaginary collective?

[agrippa1]

Please show us your deed of ownership to the whole united states or, failing that, at least the whole terrain of the border.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours!

One of us is being obtuse, and it's not me.

I am trying to assert that it is not immoral to not feel obliged to let strangers on your property.

You are taking taking the position that your desire to let illegals onto your property trumps the law of the land which requires that immigrants go through a legal process for entry. Since you are not in the position to protect me from the incursion of illegal trespassers, but the government is, you don't have the "right" to determine who enters this nation.

If you lived on an island outside of all national boundaries, then I grant you the right to allow anyone you wish to enter your property, but you live in a nation, and therefore do not have the unlimited right to determine who accesses your land. (For clear example, you do not have the right to allow the Chinese Army to establish a garrison on your back forty)

[Trebor]

You mean this:

in which she asserts that there are some, limited, collective rights, which are derived from the rights of the individuals in the collective?

Do citizens of a free nation have the right to be protected from the initiation of force? Is trespassing on the land of the nation, without the permission of the national government, as specified by objective law, the initiation of force?

Five young thugs and one young woman walking alone at night is a group of individuals, a collective. Hell, be generous, "Hey babe, we'll let you vote too!"

Edited May 10, 2010 by Trebor

[2046]

I'll show you mine if you show me yours!

One of us is being obtuse, and it's not me.

I am trying to assert that it is not immoral to not feel obliged to let strangers on your property.

You are taking taking the position that your desire to let illegals onto your property trumps the law of the land which requires that immigrants go through a legal process for entry. Since you are not in the position to protect me from the incursion of illegal trespassers, but the government is, you don't have the "right" to determine who enters this nation.

If you lived on an island outside of all national boundaries, then I grant you the right to allow anyone you wish to enter your property, but you live in a nation, and therefore do not have the unlimited right to determine who accesses your land. (For clear example, you do not have the right to allow the Chinese Army to establish a garrison on your back forty)

You're repeating the same nonsense that I already addressed on like page 3, where Maximus said that free immigration would mean we must for some reason allow the Mexican Army to come in the US.

You're taking the position that you have the right to control who you want to exclude, but evading the fact that I have a right to control who I want to include, and instead asserting that I have to submit to the collective in my inclusion, but you have to do no such thing if the collective were to decide that you had to bunk a stranger. You want to have your rights and deny them. You're also guilty of equivocating between an illegal immigrant and a trespasser, due to the fact that you think the nation is collective property. You also are guilty of equivocating between the government's non-arbitrary exclusion of rights violators or an invading army which private property ownership is not sufficient to allow, and the government's arbitrary exclusion of non rights violators, which private property ownership is sufficient to allow.

[aequalsa]

So, we are back once again to "individuals have a right to keep people off of their privately owned property, but the national government, despite being a legal entity representing the populace, has no such right because no one owns the entire country."

Yes but only because you hate freedom.

Jeebus H. Crispy!

Is that some sort of racial epitaph?!?!?

There is something really wrong with that entire concept.

I really don't want to discuss this with you any longer because this statement makes it clear to me that you hate brown people. Especially Cherokees.

[agrippa1]

You're repeating the same nonsense that I already addressed on like page 3, where Maximus said that free immigration would mean we must for some reason allow the Mexican Army to come in the US.

You're taking the position that you have the right to control who you want to exclude, but evading the fact that I have a right to control who I want to include, and instead asserting that I have to submit to the collective in my inclusion, but you have to do no such thing if the collective were to decide that you had to bunk a stranger. You want to have your rights and deny them. You're also guilty of equivocating between an illegal immigrant and a trespasser, due to the fact that you think the nation is collective property. You also are guilty of equivocating between the government's non-arbitrary exclusion of rights violators or an invading army which private property ownership is not sufficient to allow, and the government's arbitrary exclusion of non rights violators, which private property ownership is sufficient to allow.

The nation is collective property. If not, then it is unowned, and open to all comers.

This is your so-claimed "addressing" of the Mexican Army "nonsense":

Again, what part of free immigration entails the right of an invading army to come in? What part of free immigration entails trespass? What part of an individual being free to act as he chooses, without being subject to force by others or by the government do you not understand, or agree with?

What is the Mexican Army, other than a group of individuals? What is the principle that allows the "right" of individual Mexican Army members to come across our borders to look for sympathetic land owners, but denies the Mexican Army, a group of individuals, from entering?

The legal immigration path allows the nation to establish the rights and obligations of citizens of the nation. It ensures that the individual is entering as an individual and holds no loyalty to another nation. It protects the citizenry of the nation from exactly the threat that Maximus pointed out, but which you deny is a threat because your right to invite anyone you wish is none of anyone else's business.

I was under the impression that the members of this forum might have a read a little novel in which entry into the Objectivist Utopia called Galt's Gulch is contingent upon each immigrant taking an oath. That's right, anyone who wished to enter the land was compelled to take an oath. Horrors! What an infringement of their individual rights!!! Of course, according to your world view, they retained the "right" to sneak in, and expect not to be forcibly removed for ignoring the law of the land. Because, after all, they were only sneaking in, not trespassing.

You might want to pick Atlas Shrugged up some time, it's a pretty good book. In spite of it's philosophical shortcomings.

Edited May 10, 2010 by agrippa1

[kainscalia]

I'll show you mine if you show me yours!

One of us is being obtuse, and it's not me.

Actualy , it is you: You are somehow taking the position that the United States is collectively owned by y'all, as they say back in Asheville, and that's simply not true: You own *your* land, but you have no right to prescribe whether or not someone has the right to set foot on land you do not legally own. The government does not have the right to prescribe who enters this country or not outside of prescriptions against criminals and terrorists. You require no protection by the government unless it be from criminals, and those occur regardless of any nationality. To attempt to link the concept of Immigrant=Criminal is a feat of un-intelligence that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Honestly, Leonard Peikoff, Harry Binswanger and Yaron Brook, even Ayn Rand herself. I wonder how you can't see that your position is antithetical to the core of objectivism- and no, I'm not going for an article from intimidation, but rather saying that you can't be for something and support something that contradicts its core principles, and still have the gall to claim to be both consistent and an adherent of the philosophy. There's Objectivism, and then there's David Kelley and Alan Greenspan. Your arguments are statist in nature and tremendously suspect- to question whether or not those laws are immoral is beyond you, you treat the state and its laws as an axiom, as opposed to a consequence of principles. The only proper course of action when inquiry identifies a law as immoral is to oppose it- to support it would be even more immoral.

I suggest you and Maximus stop being in love with Gaius and Octavian and start re-reading some of the books that allegedly brought you to this site.

Edited May 10, 2010 by kainscalia

[kainscalia]

So, we are back once again to "individuals have a right to keep people off of their privately owned property, but the national government, despite being a legal entity representing the populace, has no such right because no one owns the entire country."

Jeebus H. Crispy!

There is something really wrong with that entire concept.

So does that mean that the U.S. owns your property, and you're just leasing it from them?

[~Sophia~]

This is an abnormal, man created situation in which the rights of citizens have been placed in conflict with the rights of immigrants. There is no moral obligation on the part of the citizens to act at the expense of their rights. Immigrants do not have a moral right to demand such a thing. No person has a moral right to demand a sacrifice from another. That is Objectivism. If you find yourself demanding such a thing - you have to check your premises. The arguments that have been presented here in support of this are pure rationalism removed from the facts of reality. Most of us here (if not all) agree on what "ought to be" but the conditions, the context which make the ought to be a good idea are not present at the moment.

The only true solution is to eliminate laws which created the conflict of rights in a first place.

[Jake_Ellison]

First, excluding blacks is inherently racist.

It's not. But I'm more interested in your answer to this question:

Who's property did I trespass on?

[FeatherFall]

The nation is collective property. If not, then it is unowned, and open to all comers.

Please clarify this position. Are you saying ownership is an attribute only collectives can have? I'm honestly confused and would like you to elaborate. While elaborating, please explain how collective property relates to the concepts of ownership and jurisdiction (as discussed earlier in this thread). I believe ownership and jurisdiction are different things with different implications even though they sometimes govern the same plot of land. I also think that you are conflating the two concepts. Do you accept that they are distinct or not?

[Trebor]

This is an abnormal, man created situation in which the rights of citizens have been placed in conflict with the rights of immigrants. There is no moral obligation on the part of the citizens to act at the expense of their rights. Immigrants do not have a moral right to demand such a thing. No person has a moral right to demand a sacrifice from another. That is Objectivism. If you find yourself demanding such a thing - you have to check your premises.

Swapping the groups in your statement is true as well.

This is an abnormal, man created situation in which the rights of immigrants have been placed in conflict with the rights of citizens. There is no moral obligation on the part of the immigrant to act at the expense of their rights. Citizens do not have a moral right to demand such a thing. No person has a moral right to demand a sacrifice from another. That is Objectivism. If you find yourself demanding such a thing - you have to check your premises.

George Reisman, in his Chapter 20, "Toward the Establishment of Laissez-Faire Capitalism," of his Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, offers a solution to this conflict that accords with the principle of individual rights in the section titled, "Freedom of Immigration."

[~Sophia~]

Swapping the groups in your statement is true as well.

Yes it does - the nature of the situation in which human rights are in conflict.

[~Sophia~]

George Reisman, in his Chapter 20, "Toward the Establishment of Laissez-Faire Capitalism," of his Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, offers a solution to this conflict that accords with the principle of individual rights in the section titled, "Freedom of Immigration."

And there he writes:

The only legitimate argument against unrestricted Mexican immigration (or unrestricted immigration of any other ethnic group) is based on the existence of our welfare state. To the extent that Mexicans come here and go on welfare and medicaid, or use public hospitals and public schools, and place an increased burden on government-subsidized public transportation facilities and so forth, then, it is true, there is a genuine loss imposed on the people already here. The solution, however, is not to violate the right of the Mexicans to immigrate, but to start dismantling our welfare state.

(bold mine)

What he writes later is worth considering as well:

Without immediately abolishing the totality of the welfare state, which would be politically impossible, we could simply change its terms and make all noncitizens ineligible for its programs.

I wrote about this before. In Canada, in some circumstances, the period of ineligibility is 10 years (longer than the period before you can become a citizen, actually).

EDIT:

I would like to add that 17 years ago when my US visa was about to expire - I would have been happy to sign a life long contract that would make me ineligible for such programs indefinitely.

Edited May 10, 2010 by ~Sophia~

[Trebor]

Although Rahm Emanuel meant that a crisis is an opportunity to take over more of the economy when he said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before," such a crisis, as is this one over immigration, is an opportunity to inject the right ideas into a culture as well.

[Trebor]

What he writes later is worth considering as well:

Agreed.

This country has created its welfare state; the fault is ours, not those who want to immigrate. Immigrants have no right to welfare at the expense of others, but neither do the citizens of this country.

There's a serious potential that this conflict could lead to a police state, and Reisman discusses that potential in his blog entry, "Immigration Plus Welfare State Equal Police State."

From that entry: "Of course, ending the Welfare State is much easier said than done, and it is almost certainly not going to be eliminated even in order to avoid the environment of a police state."

That is the serious danger in this crisis. There's no safe middle ground where we can wait out the conflict until the laws are changed. We are in transition, either to a rights respecting society or further down the road to serfdom.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

[There are quotes from Reisman opining that we could have rules preventing immigrants from using "social services" that didn't copy, but are germane to my reply--SD]

EDIT:

I would like to add that 17 years ago when my US visa was about to expire - I would have been happy to sign a life long contract that would make me ineligible for such programs indefinitely.

But that's precisely the point Maximus tried to make by referencing the legal decision two pages back--our Supreme Court would rule ANY such law not allowing immigrants (or even illegal immigrants) to use these services to be unconstitutional. It's a catch 22. Until we have the will to get rid of the welfare state, we are stuck with this problem, and people will be tempted to restrict immigration to try to "solve" it.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Steve D'Ippolito

[softwareNerd]

There's no safe middle ground ...

As far as the issue of immigration itself goes, the approaches suggested by Bush and by Obama -- the so called "comprehensive reform"-- is a middle ground (i.e. medium-level rights-violations for all, at levels similar to what we have today) where one would take a pause to stop the situation from slipping too fast one way or the other. The essence of this approach is to mostly legalize the current situation, to increase the quotas for future immigrants (particularly for Mexicans), to add rules into immigration laws that give some type of preference to those who have a lower expected welfare cost, and strengthen enforcement. We're not going to get an ideal solution; but something along these lines will be an improvement on what we have today.

The main bottleneck to a political compromise like this is certain sections of the GOP, and commentators like Beck and O'Reilly, who want enforcement before all else.

Edited May 10, 2010 by softwareNerd

[2046]

The nation is collective property. If not, then it is unowned, and open to all comers.

Collective property of whom? "The nation?" The point you are forced to deal with is the nation is only a number of individual men, each with the right to exercise control over their physical bodies and property, so long as they do not subject another to force, including their right to open their property (including real estate) for trade with all comers, as long as they too do not subject another to force.

What is the Mexican Army, other than a group of individuals? What is the principle that allows the "right" of individual Mexican Army members to come across our borders to look for sympathetic land owners, but denies the Mexican Army, a group of individuals, from entering?

Strangely enough, the Mexican Army is the armed force of the government of Mexico. Their jurisdiction ends at the borders of Mexico, and since what the Mexican Army does is use force (all government action is force), the government of the United States must regulate the use of force within its jurisdiction by banning foreign armies. Free immigration refers to settlement open to all comers, so long as they are peaceful settlers who do not exercise force, so obviously that would exclude the Chinese or Mexican or Guatemalan or whatever army you could think of.

The legal immigration path allows the nation to establish the rights and obligations of citizens of the nation. It ensures that the individual is entering as an individual and holds no loyalty to another nation. It protects the citizenry of the nation from exactly the threat that Maximus pointed out, but which you deny is a threat because your right to invite anyone you wish is none of anyone else's business.

And it isn't. What if I don't want to take your oath? Will you send armed tax-feeders to kick down my door and force me to swear allegiance to the nation-state? Oh but you want immigrants to be "compelled" to take Galt's oath. Will you force me to swear that I won't live for the sake of another man at gunpoint, or else forcibly violate my rights? Your objections are absurd to the point of comedy.

I was under the impression that the members of this forum might have a read a little novel in which entry into the Objectivist Utopia called Galt's Gulch is contingent upon each immigrant taking an oath. That's right, anyone who wished to enter the land was compelled to take an oath. Horrors! What an infringement of their individual rights!!!

Appeal to authority. Nonetheless, the whole point of the oath was evidently over your head, so it's not surprising that you make this mistake too: Galt's Gulch was private property and the owners had every right to stipulate that as a requirement of entry. But in case we haven't reminded you enough: You do not own the entire United States of America. So you don't have the right to force immigrants to take Galt's oath upon entry to the United States, aside from the little fact that that would be a total performative contradiction of the oath's subject matter.