Immigration Law in Arizona

[ex_banana-eater]

Yes, it is currently handled by the government and it is currently very costly. That's our problem! It doesn't need to be! At the very most (and I'm not convinced even this is necessary), immigration would involve a border check running names and faces against databases of known criminals and a blood test screening for known diseases...

This would result in destroying entire industries. As a Canadian, I drove down to California last month, and I did not do any blood tests. Had I decided to rent a house and immigrate to California while I was there, how would the blood tests be retroactively imposed on me? The only possible means to enforce this would be to blood test all cross-border traffic.

[Trebor]

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.

But it is the ideal solution that we should be advocates for, even if it is yet unachievable. (Not to say that you suggest otherwise.)

In his Chapter 20 of his book, Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, Reisman opens with what I think to be the proper and necessary overall attitude and approach that is needed to actually move towards a fully laissez-faire capitalist society (who wants a goddamn welfare state, mixed economy?), then he suggest some various proposals with respect to a variety of government programs which need to go.

"The first thing that those in favor of capitalism must do is to make the conscious, explicit decision that they seriously want to achieve a fully capitalist society and are prepared to work for its achievement. We need to view ourselves as active agents of change, working toward a definite goal: laissez-faire capitalism."

And a few paragraphs later:

"The political proposals I make are short- and intermediate-range, as well as long-range in nature. I believe that it will take several generations to achieve a fully capitalist society, mainly because of the time required for the educational process. It will not be enough just to present our long-range goals. It will be necessary to advocate a whole intervening series of short- and intermediate-range goals whose enactment will represent progress toward our long-range goals. The major political task in the years ahead will be continuously to formulate such short and intermediate range goals, and to keep the country moving in the direction of full capitalism by means of their successive achievement. The short- and intermediate-range goals I offer are intended to illustrate principles of strategy and tactics and thus to serve as a pattern.

In the light of the preceding, it should scarcely be necessary to say that at no time should the advocacy of sound principles be sacrificed to notions of political expediency, advanced under misguided ideas about what is "practical." The only practical course is to name and defend true principles and then seek to win over public opinion to the support of such principles. It is never to accept the untrue principles that guide public opinion at the moment and design and advocate programs that pander to the errors of the public. Such a procedure is to abandon the fight for any fundamental or significant change--namely, a change in people's ideas--and to reinforce the errors we want to combat."

The later point is the most profoundly important. This is a battle of fundamental ideas. Even if we can't expect a victory in our lifetime or for several generations, we should be for nothing less than the ideal, laissez-faire capitalism. That chapter (20) alone is very inspiring. I encourage anyone interested in understanding what must be done, and why, to read it.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Trebor

[agrippa1]

Sorry, when I said "The nation is collective property" I meant the lands within a nation which are not specifically owned by other entities.

An individual can own property.

A group of individuals can, through a contract, own property. (for instance, a corporate entity or partnership)

When a group of individuals agrees to own a piece of property while giving up their individual right to that property, then by contract they agree on how that property is to be run. Then the property is run by committee or managing member, or whatever mechanism the co-owners of that property agree to, in the execution of the contract.

Ownership and jurisdiction are two separate things, with ownership falling on the person or entity to whom the land legally belongs, and jurisdiction ultimately falling to the state, or to some combination of sub-state entities, delegated by the state, down to and including an individual owner. By this I mean that you have some jurisdiction over your land, but if you are an American citizen, you don't have the jurisdiction to capture a poacher, for instance, and then deprive him of life, liberty or property. Because justice must be governed by the rule of objective law among men, you must turn that poacher over to the legal authorities with jurisdiction over your land, with respect to the punishment and restitution of an initiation of force. (You do have the right to protect yourself and property from the poacher, but once you've interdicted, you must relinquish jurisdiction over the agreed-upon judicial process.) Ultimately, jurisdiction, the authority to administer justice, falls to the highest agreed upon government entity in the land. In our case, the Federal Government, whose jurisdiction is limited ostensibly by the Constitution, and which delegates jurisdiction to the states and to "the people," which includes private, voluntary groups of people acting under contract as a single entity.

A moral state involves a voluntary contract between individuals within a geographic area. That contract involves certain things essential and proper to a government, including the creation of objective laws, the execution of those laws, a justice system based on individual rights and the defense of the citizenry against all enemies foreign and domestic.

That state, in the execution of its essential duties, must have property, at least under its control, if not outright legal ownership. Examples of this include police departments, court buildings, legislative buildings, military stores and bases on the frontier. You may have a debate over whether it is proper for the government to maintain ownership of these properties, or whether the gov't should lease or borrow land from citizens, or if the land should be considered "unowned" as some here seem to suggest. Regardless of that debate, the fact remains that the government must control those lands, including all jurisdiction and access. As someone much wiser than I once pointed out, ownership without control is a contradiction in terms. I would argue, so is control without ownership.

Now, if we consider that a government is jointly owned by its citizens, in much the same manner in which a corporation is owned by its stockholders, or a partnership is owned by its partners, through the voluntary agreement of all citizens, then it is proper for the state to act as the agent of all citizens in owning, controlling and maintaining jurisdiction over parts of the land of the nation not owned by individuals or private, legal groups of individuals.

If it is decided, through the mechanism voluntarily agreed to by all citizens - the mechanism, not necessarily the decision - that immigration into that land, that nation, that property, should be limited to only those who go through a proper, legally circumscribed introductory process, then it is perfectly moral for the executive agent of the owners of that property, i.e., the government, to legislate and execute immigration laws.

The primary moral reason behind limiting and screening immigration into a nation is to ensure that the entry of immigrants does not ultimately deny the (individual) rights of the current citizens of that nation.

The question of the Mexican Army seems to be lost on some. Without immigration controls, a member of an enemy army can enter a nation as an individual, without regard to his status as a member of an external collective. If a million such individuals enter, under the natural guise of individualism, but with the motives of collectivism, then the open border provides a means for a foreign entity to invade without invading; to establish a beachhead within the nation without ever having used force to enter.

Furthermore, if the nation uses democracy to determine the function of the government, an external entity can overwhelm the nation from within, physically, politically, intellectually, without ever using force, until the representatives they elect and the laws those reps enact, lead to the initiation of force by the newly, and fundamentally transformed government against its citizens. It is an established fact that the government of the Soviet Union intentionally infiltrated key areas of our government and culture with the express intent of bringing about just such change. Whether they have been successful or not is a matter of opinion.

This is not an argument against legitimate immigrants having free access to enter our nation, it is an argument against free access to all immigrants, legitimate and not. If your argument is that there are no illegitimate immigrants, and by that I mean immigrants with ulterior motives or loyalties that they intend to use against us, I'd like to hear the argument for why they are not within the realm of reasonable consideration.

The worst form of naivete is to grant access to your life, liberty and property to those who do not recognize individual rights. Implementing a rational immigration process is one way of keeping that from happening.

[softwareNerd]

But it is the ideal solution that we should be advocates for, even if it is yet unachievable. (Not to say that you suggest otherwise.)

Yes, even if one votes for something like that, one does not support it intellectually, but shows why it remains a bad "solution", and why there are far better solutions possible.

[agrippa1]

Terrorist Threat On Border With Mexico

Channel 2 Action News anchor Justin Farmer traveled to Arizona to view a detention center near Phoenix. He viewed records that show illegals in custody from from Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and Yemen.

...

Federal agents confirmed Adnan Shurkajumah spent time in Atlanta just prior to Sep. 11th, and left on a bus. He is a Saudi Arabian pilot and bomb expert with a $5 million bounty on his head. In 2004, Shurkajumah was one of seven Al-Qaida members agents were looking for after they were spotted in Central America and believed headed to the United States through Mexico . Federal agents now say Shurkajumah seems to have disappeared.

Let them in, let them in... Don't violate their rights.

[Jake_Ellison]

Terrorist Threat On Border With Mexico

Let them in, let them in... Don't violate their rights.

God forbid we do that. You can't have respect for rights and fight terrorists all at the same time.

[Maximus]

God forbid we do that. You can't have respect for rights and fight terrorists all at the same time.

Lets ignore it and it will go away.

[agrippa1]

God forbid we do that. You can't have respect for rights and fight terrorists all at the same time.

Respect for rights entails protection of rights. Protection entails limited infringements on freedom.

Purity may work fine on a web forum; it doesn't work so well in reality. Rand recognized it when she rejected anarchy ("without rule") in favor of limited government.

The attitude among many here is that any relinquishment of individual freedoms to government is a violation of Objectivism. In fact, it is a requirement of a free society, according to Objectivism. People can't do whatever they want.

Sorry.

Edited May 11, 2010 by agrippa1

[Jake_Ellison]

Respect for rights entails protection of rights. Protection entails limited infringements on freedom.

Purity may work fine on a web forum; it doesn't work so well in reality. Rand recognized it when she rejected anarchy ("without rule") in favor of limited government.

I didn't realize this was the extent of your familiarity with Objectivism. I'm afraid I wasted my time, relying on concepts I assumed you were read up on. But I'm pretty sure that's your fault, because you repeatedly claimed to be familiar with Rand, and in fact pretended to be interpreting Objectivist principles.

Here's what she had to say on your little dichotomy:

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force.

It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a “compromise” between two rights—but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society—but from your own inalienable individual right. The definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by society—but is implicit in the definition of your own right.

Within the sphere of your own rights, your freedom is absolute.

If you think that's naive, and only useful on a web page, feel free. But don't come in here pretending to understand Objectivism, or go around telling people Rand was a Pragmatist. She wasn't.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[2046]

Respect for rights entails protection of rights. Protection entails limited infringements on freedom.

No. You really lack a grasp on what rights are.

Purity may work fine on a web forum; it doesn't work so well in reality. Rand recognized it when she rejected anarchy ("without rule") in favor of limited government.

The reason for a limited government is to provide a jurisdiction of objective law and order, not to be a Hobbesian wolf that turns two other wolves into sheep by ruling over them.

The attitude among many here is that any relinquishment of individual freedoms to government is a violation of Objectivism. In fact, it is a requirement of a free society, according to Objectivism.

What is this "Objectivism" you speak of, and where can I read where it requires me to relinquish any of my individual freedoms? The Objectivism I know about actually can only lead to the conclusion that the rights of one man cannot violate the rights of another, so I am never required to do such a thing.

People can't do whatever they want.

This. So the only choice is giving up my freedom or doing whatever I want? If you were to be consisent by your own logic, nobody has any rights, since man is not free to murder or steal. There is no "free trade" because man is not free to defraud, so we have to have "restricted trade." There is no "free immigration" since man is not free to trespass, so we must have "restricted immigration." (Quo Vadis already tried the "if you're for free immigration, then you are saying people can move wherever they want and be criminals and trespassers" argument, meaning since we don't allow trespass or people to move wherever the feel like regardless of private property rights then that qualifies as "restricted immigration." I answered to that here.) This was identified as "an old collectivist trick" by Ayn Rand:

Do not be misled on this point by an old collectivist trick which goes like this: There is no absolute freedom anyway, since you are not free to murder; society limits your freedom when it does not permit you to kill; therefore, society holds the right to limit your freedom in any manner it sees fit; therefore, drop the delusion of freedom -- freedom is whatever society decides it is.

It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill -- but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a "compromise" between two rights - but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society -- but from your own inalienable individual right. The definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by society -- but is implicit in the definition of your own right.

Within the sphere of your own rights, your freedom is absolute.

A "right" is an area where the individual retains absolute freedom of action to do anything he wants except start the use of force on others. Rights must be compossible, otherwise you are forced into contradiction one way or another.

[Maximus]

This is not an argument against legitimate immigrants having free access to enter our nation, it is an argument against free access to all immigrants, legitimate and not. If your argument is that there are no illegitimate immigrants, and by that I mean immigrants with ulterior motives or loyalties that they intend to use against us, I'd like to hear the argument for why they are not within the realm of reasonable consideration.

The worst form of naivete is to grant access to your life, liberty and property to those who do not recognize individual rights. Implementing a rational immigration process is one way of keeping that from happening.

I'd like to see this addressed. I also want to know, since apparently we are violating immigrants rights by having them adhere to a process, is it okay to have them vote in our elections? This goes to the point agippa1 made about infiltration by hostiles and subverting the voting process, which we see now with illegals voting in our elections. No personal attacks, please. Just address the questions.

[aequalsa]

It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill -- but the inalienable individual right of another man to live.

I admire your idealism, but I think it is misplaced in this argument. I am quite certain that neither Agrippa, Maximus, Sophia nor I lack any necessary knowledge about rights theory from an objectivist perspective. The primary problem in the miscommunication between our two sides is that we are looking primarily at the application of law and not just the theory upon which it should be based.

We aren't looking at immigration and saying to ourselves, "should people have rights to their life, liberty, and property and be able to move freely and act as they wish?" Our question, rather, is "Since people have rights to life liberty, and property, what laws, enforcement procedures and other methodologies of government are most conducive to those ends in our present context?"

Sometimes minor infringements of rights are acceptable in application because human perception and reasoning will never be perfect.

If I am doing nothing wrong, but a cop signals me to pull over, I still cooperate. By your arguments, since I know that I have violated no rights, he has no right to pull me over; I should just ignore him or try to get away and when he then escalates the use of force and rams me off the road or draws his gun, I should try to shoot him first before my rights get violated. In actuality, this absolute right of immigration devoid of the inconvenience of going through a proper immigration process doesn't exist and can never. No perfect objectivist society would allow you to yell fire in crowded theaters even though your freedom of speech seems to imply that you could. If nine people got trampled to death, you would properly be criminally liable. Not just civilly because you broke the terms of agreement that the owner posted.

Rights are violated by limiting that speech, being pulled over for no reason, or even wrongful arrest and imprisonment. Objective courts try to sort that out later whether the use of force was reasonable in the given context sometimes unsuccessfully, but usually they do a decent, not perfect, job.

To relate this to the current thread, we are not in disagreement about people being able to come here freely, in general. Just whether anyone should cross wilynily without any restriction, hindrance, or concern. The current context is that security threats do exist to the US and its citizens, so stopping entrants at the border for security checks etc, is a wise idea in the ultimate goal of protecting the rights of people inside of its jurisdiction, which is the proper charge of the US government.

Edited May 11, 2010 by aequalsa

[SapereAude]

I'd like to see this addressed. I also want to know, since apparently we are violating immigrants rights by having them adhere to a process, is it okay to have them vote in our elections? This goes to the point agippa1 made about infiltration by hostiles and subverting the voting process, which we see now with illegals voting in our elections. No personal attacks, please. Just address the questions.

I second this question.

If being here is a right then does it not follow that voting here is a right since you will be subject to the laws created by representitives?

Immigration is a process, and at this point a very flawed process indeed.

So is our court system.

It stands to reason that if people have a right to forego the immigration system because it is overly long, expensive and labrynthine then why can we not also say that the court system is as well and forego that?

Could we please skip the ad hominem in responses to this? I think that even if you disagree you can see the legitimate point being made. I'm almost certain that the majority of people posting here can find a way to point out flaws in my logic without being personally insulting.

I believe that this was Agrippa's earlier point- that by chosing to be in this country you are de facto consenting to certain limitiations on personal freedom otherwise there is anarchy. That is what our entire legal system is based on- deferring our freedom to personally and privately seek redress for harms and giving it to the government to handle, no?

[FeatherFall]

Terrorist Threat On Border With Mexico

Let them in, let them in... Don't violate their rights.

I haven't seen anyone advocate the position to which you allude with this post. One of the strongest practical arguments from the pro open borders side is this: Because valuable resources are not wasted policing innocent people, law enforcement can focus on catching dangerous criminals and terrorists (people who plan to do more than just wait outside of a home depot on a hot day in the hopes that someone is building a deck). This, in turn, reduces the market for human smuggling, making it more difficult for terrorists and killers to cross the border.

To relate this to the current thread, we are not in disagreement about people being able to come here freely, in general. Just whether anyone should cross wilynily without any restriction, hindrance, or concern. The current context is that security threats do exist to the US and its citizens, so stopping entrants at the border for security checks etc, is a wise idea in the ultimate goal of protecting the rights of people inside of its jurisdiction, which is the proper charge of the US government.

People would be encouraged to go through the relevant checks if those checks were reasonable. What most people can expect when they apply for entry is something to the effect of "pay me thousands of dollars and wait five to ten years, then I'll tell you what I think." this is little different than a flat-out denial to most people. A flat-out denial is not a proper way of dealing with immigration. On a road with a 1/2mph speed limit, speeding is justified. The same is true with a 2mph speed limit. If I keep increasing the limit, we will eventually enter a gray area and argue as to whether or not disregarding the limit is proper. We seem to be in that gray area in regard to immigration.

If the speed limit were in that gray area, would it be proper to tell people to follow the limit and respect the law, or would it be ok to look the other way when someone travels with the speed of traffic? Both, maybe? You'd think it would be such a trivial issue that we wouldn't even discuss it, leaving each other to our separate conclusions while we co-operate on changing the speed limit. I suggest dropping the issue with regard to immigration, and focus on implementing a proper immigrant intake/screening system.

If being here is a right then does it not follow that voting here is a right since you will be subject to the laws created by representitives?

Immigration is a process, and at this point a very flawed process indeed.

Not necessarily. Are you implying that, to follow the open-immigration position to its logical (and absurd, in your estimation) conclusion we have to grant citizenship to all immigrants with no questions asked?

-edit for clarity

Edited May 11, 2010 by FeatherFall

[SapereAude]

Not necessarily. Are you implying that, to follow the open-immigration position to its logical (and absurd, in your estimation) conclusion we have to grant citizenship to all immigrants with no questions asked?

-edit for clarity

What I was referring to is the frequent assertion on this thread that being here is a right. A right that no one seems to agree on at which point that right may be restricted.

Some would say any criminal background would be reason to deny entrance- but if we believe anti-drug laws are immoral what then?

Some would say any violent crime would bar entry- but what if the immigrant is from a place like England where the right to self defense is often not recognized and the person was charged w/violent crime for self-defense?

Some would say if the person has no ability to legally support themselves, lets say elderly and crippled and currently on government dole in their home country?

These are not absurd example- these are just day to day facts of existence.

How do we determine eligibility?

Well, it would seem to stand to reason that it would be by having a closed guarded border where people undergo background checks before being allowed through?

It seems you are allowing that the people of a nation have, through their government, a right to set at least some standards for entry?

My point is- assuming you are amongst those who believe some standards are applicable- that where there are standards there will be a process to establish compliance with those standards. Currently under the law of the land that process is our immigration process.

To those that are saying that because the immigration process is flawed people have the right to forego it by any means necessary I am posing the question- is this not true then of any government process?

Is immigration that special and unique, so wholly apart from all other government functions?

If one has the right to forego immigration process due to its flaws then why do we not equally have the right to forego the court process due to its flaws?

If one person has the right to sneak into this country, get false papers (which are often tied to indentity theft- a clear rights violation) and do as they see fit because immigration is expensive and take too long then why does one not have the right to destroy the car of someone who caused an accident they got hurt in or break into the house of a burglar to look for stolen goods because the court process is long, expensive and flawed?

..I don't believe this is reductio ad absurdum at all. I think the context fits.

[Jake_Ellison]

I second this question.

If being here is a right then does it not follow that voting here is a right since you will be subject to the laws created by representitives?

Immigration is a process, and at this point a very flawed process indeed.

So is our court system.

It stands to reason that if people have a right to forego the immigration system because it is overly long, expensive and labrynthine then why can we not also say that the court system is as well and forego that?

Could we please skip the ad hominem in responses to this? I think that even if you disagree you can see the legitimate point being made. I'm almost certain that the majority of people posting here can find a way to point out flaws in my logic without being personally insulting.

I believe that this was Agrippa's earlier point- that by chosing to be in this country you are de facto consenting to certain limitiations on personal freedom otherwise there is anarchy. That is what our entire legal system is based on- deferring our freedom to personally and privately seek redress for harms and giving it to the government to handle, no?

No.

[SapereAude]

No.

So our court system, whereby we give up the freedom to personally seek vengeance for personal grievences.. you do not believe in the validity of this system?

[Jake_Ellison]

If being here is a right then does it not follow that voting here is a right since you will be subject to the laws created by representitives?

No.

It stands to reason that if people have a right to forego the immigration system because it is overly long, expensive and labrynthine then why can we not also say that the court system is as well and forego that?

No, it doesn't.

That is what our entire legal system is based on- deferring our freedom to personally and privately seek redress for harms and giving it to the government to handle, no?

No.

So our court system, whereby we give up the freedom to personally seek vengeance for personal grievences.. you do not believe in the validity of this system?

No. I believe in Capitalism.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[aequalsa]

On a road with a 1/2mph speed limit, speeding is justified.

I disagree that one would be justified in breaking an unreasonable law, even one as unreasonable as a 1/2mph speed limit. I think where I disagree is that it is gray at all. The law is very clear that below 1/2mph is acceptable, above is not. The greyness is in where it is reasonable to set it. That decision rests with the legislatures and their appointed bureaucrats. The number amount is somewhat arbitrary and should reasonably be discussed but a line has to be drawn at a point of enforcement. The same problem occurs with age of majority. Why 18? Why not 2 days before 18? Nothing is fundamentally different in so short a time. As a practical matter of government, some age limit must be set and to make it fair, it is applied consistently even if, objectively, at 17, you are more reasonable and qualified than someone else you know who is 19. The fact that it is imprecise does not mean it is arbitrary. Some elected officials sat down and made a particular decision at what limits to set. If we disagree with their reasoning and decisions we can vote against them or reason with them to change, but breaking the law is not our prerogative if we wish to live in a just society.

The acceptable exception, as I noted earlier is, if you believe us to be in a dictatorship where there are no means of redress, except violence left to you. And in that case, there is nothing I see that is special about immigration and all immoral laws should be disregarded as often as you safely can. The fact that people still want to emigrate here, in part, leads me to the conclusion that we are not yet at that point.

[SapereAude]

No.

No, it doesn't.

No.

No. I believe in Capitalism.

From the link you posted:

"the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."

in response to my asking if you believed in the system by which the individual gives up the freedom to seek personal redress for legal grievances in favor of thegovernment legal system is valid.... You said "no" and then posted this link.. do you see a contradiction?

[2046]

Sometimes minor infringements of rights are acceptable in application because human perception and reasoning will never be perfect.

If I am doing nothing wrong, but a cop signals me to pull over, I still cooperate. By your arguments, since I know that I have violated no rights, he has no right to pull me over; I should just ignore him or try to get away and when he then escalates the use of force and rams me off the road or draws his gun, I should try to shoot him first before my rights get violated. In actuality, this absolute right of immigration devoid of the inconvenience of going through a proper immigration process doesn't exist and can never.

Yeah sure, the cops can pull you over if there is probable cause that you have committed a rights-violation, but they have no right to detain you and especially not to kidnap you and deport you because some xenophobes don't want you in “their” country. But if your concern is that immigrants won't want to pull over for the police, then sanctioning that Arizona law is an odd thing to do.

No perfect objectivist society would allow you to yell fire in crowded theaters even though your freedom of speech seems to imply that you could. If nine people got trampled to death, you would properly be criminally liable. Not just civilly because you broke the terms of agreement that the owner posted.

Oh but it doesn't. Free speech or rights in general aren't some vaporous abstractions that float around in space. If some guy yells “fire!” falsely in a crowded theater, he is violating the property rights of the theater owner who sold him the ticket under certain circumstances, and of the other patrons who bought the tickets and now will not be able to see the show, the “terms of agreement” you are referring to. So there is no supposed conundrum of having to restrict this floating abstraction called “free speech” in the name the “greater good,” there are only individual rights, and its the most practical thing in the world.

To relate this to the current thread, we are not in disagreement about people being able to come here freely, in general. Just whether anyone should cross wilynily without any restriction, hindrance, or concern.

No, that's exactly what we are in disagreement over. The several of you seem to think that you, acting in the name of “the nation” or vice versa, have a right to restrict peaceful migration, in general, for some various assorted reasons, which have all been answered to. You'll notice none of us suggested that immigrants shouldn't have to pull over for the police, that they should be allowed to violate property rights, or not be screened in some fashion. (I even suggested some criteria for entering a port of entry earlier, don't know if I would call it “screening” though.)

[Jake_Ellison]

How do we determine eligibility?

You don't.

Well, it would seem to stand to reason that it would be by having a closed guarded border where people undergo background checks before being allowed through?

If warranted.

It seems you are allowing that the people of a nation have, through their government, a right to set at least some standards for entry?

Yes, that standard is individual rights.

My point is- assuming you are amongst those who believe some standards are applicable- that where there are standards there will be a process to establish compliance with those standards. Currently under the law of the land that process is our immigration process.

It is not that process. It's a different process. The current process does not use the standard of individual rights. Its standard is the arbitrary will of the government.

To those that are saying that because the immigration process is flawed people have the right to forego it by any means necessary I am posing the question- is this not true then of any government process?

No.

Is immigration that special and unique, so wholly apart from all other government functions?

It is not unique. It is set apart from some government processes, but not others

If one has the right to forego immigration process due to its flaws then why do we not equally have the right to forego the court process due to its flaws?

[edit]Because the Court process is proper, its flaws are honest errors, and because we have no better alternative.

If one person has the right to sneak into this country, get false papers (which are often tied to indentity theft- a clear rights violation) and do as they see fit because immigration is expensive and take too long then why does one not have the right to destroy the car of someone who caused an accident they got hurt in or break into the house of a burglar to look for stolen goods because the court process is long, expensive and flawed?

Because the government is the institution that holds the exclusive power to provide and enforce laws which are aimed at protecting individual rights.

in response to my asking if you believed in the system by which the individual gives up the freedom to seek personal redress for legal grievances in favor of thegovernment legal system is valid.... You said "no" and then posted this link.. do you see a contradiction?

Yes. Ayn Rand defined the word freedom, in the context of politics, in a way that is incompatible with your usage of it:

Freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion.

There is no "freedom to take vengeance", as you put it.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[SapereAude]

You'll notice none of us suggested that immigrants shouldn't have to pull over for the police, that they should be allowed to violate property rights, or not be screened in some fashion. (I even suggested some criteria for entering a port of entry earlier, don't know if I would call it “screening” though.)

Ok. But this is where I see contradictions.

You believe some form of screening is legal, correct? That is what you are saying, I'm not misunderstanding you?

And the screening is to happen... should we assume ... before entry?

That would require one to believe that the government does have a legitimate power to create a screening process and demand that persons wanting entrance gp through it?

And if that is the case then what you are saying is that the government agency has, in that fuction, a valid right to use force.. unless you are saying that the screening process is to be wholly voluntary? If it is to be wholly voluntary then the point is moot... correct?

So if it is legitimate at all then there is a level of force that "we the people" are deeming appropriate for this function.. the function being the screening of persons wanting to immigrate to this country...? Yes or no?

And if the function is legitimate.. yes?

And it is mandatory, not voluntary.. yes?

Then there is some level of enforcement.. yes?

And if it is legal and mandatory and merits enforcement then when one chooses to circumvent the process.... what then?

Edited May 11, 2010 by QuoVadis

[2046]

You believe some form of screening is legal, correct? That is what you are saying, I'm not misunderstanding you?

I don't know if "screening" is the proper word to use, that conjures up images of TSA forcing human cattle into lines and making them do humiliating nonsense for the sake of security theater. I don't know exactly the details, as I said before, so I'll invoke the "I'm not a government planner" argument, but I do know that peaceful people have a right to go about their business, and rights violators should be kept out. That should be done in the least arbitrary manner possible, and I would love to hear some suggestions for that.

And the screening is to happen... should we assume ... before entry?

Do you get screened before entering the adjacent neighborhood? Or do they just have laws that say "If you're a murder, we'll put you in prison"? Why is that? The answer is because the next neighborhood is under the same jurisdiction of protection. Unless it's warranted under the circumstances, it is not per se a rights violation to tell people to come to an official port of entry, like in the old days.

And if it is legal and mandatory and merits enforcement then when one chooses to circumvent the process.... what then?

Criminals and outlaws would be the only people that would then be "illegal" but the term would obviously take on a different and more literal meaning then.

[aequalsa]

Yeah sure, the cops can pull you over if there is probable cause that you have committed a rights-violation, but they have no right to detain you and especially not to kidnap you and deport you because some xenophobes don't want you in “their” country. But if your concern is that immigrants won't want to pull over for the police, then sanctioning that Arizona law is an odd thing to do.

You are making, what I would consider, a wrongful correlation between "rights violations" and "the law." There does not exist a 1:1 ration where that is the case. The law is the methodology of avoiding as many rights violations as possible. What should be legal, should definitely be based on what protects rights. Whether or not a law should be followed should not.

Unless you are advocating that we are at the point that all immoral laws should be disobeyed. So, next April 15, you think I should not pay taxes and maybe shoot the guy who uses guns to force me to give up my hard earned money and bury him in my backyard, if I can get away with it in a rationally self-interested way, of course. I just want to be certain of your consistency.

Oh but it doesn't. Free speech or rights in general aren't some vaporous abstractions that float around in space..

It is not just a civil issue, is my point...he would be criminally liable for injury as if he had hurt them himself. Even if there were no rules specifically saying he couldn't. Rights are nor a "vaporous abstraction" but they certainly are a wide reaching abstraction which, in practice, in considered on a case by case, context ridden fashion.

No, that's exactly what we are in disagreement over. The several of you seem to think that you, acting in the name of “the nation” or vice versa, have a right to restrict peaceful migration, in general, for some various assorted reasons, which have all been answered to. You'll notice none of us suggested that immigrants shouldn't have to pull over for the police, that they should be allowed to violate property rights, or not be screened in some fashion. (I even suggested some criteria for entering a port of entry earlier, don't know if I would call it “screening” though.)

I'm glad that see the borders as having some meaning. Who then, do you think, should be in charge of running that process of entry and setting the rules for it? The government or each individual?