Immigration Law in Arizona

[SapereAude]

I'm not really seeing how it's a dispute over definitions. It's a dispute over some committing doublethink saying "rights have to be violated in order to be protected" and some that think, in agreement with Ayn Rand, that rights have to be compossible, otherwise there are no rights.

I see it as being over definitions as well: rights vs freedoms

It is a matter of natural rights (or inalienable, moral, fundamental rights)

vs

legal rights (rights that are not pre-existing but are created by society) I would choose to call rights that are legal, not natural "freedoms" and this seems like common usage.

natural/fundamental right- the right to life

legal right/"freedom"- the right to vote

a natural right exists as man exists, a freedom or a legal right is a construct resulting from the things that men create.

Does it not stand to reason then that since a border is a construct to begin with that the "rights" pertaining to it are legal rights/freedoms vs fundamental rights?

[Trebor]

"A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self- sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action-which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)" "Man's Rights"

The right to liberty (freedom) is a corollary of the right to life.

[2046]

I see it as being over definitions as well: rights vs freedoms

It is a matter of natural rights (or inalienable, moral, fundamental rights)

vs

legal rights (rights that are not pre-existing but are created by society) I would choose to call rights that are legal, not natural "freedoms" and this seems like common usage.

natural/fundamental right- the right to life

legal right/"freedom"- the right to vote

So rights versus permissions. Okay, I'll take rights please.

a natural right exists as man exists, a freedom or a legal right is a construct resulting from the things that men create.

Does it not stand to reason then that since a border is a construct to begin with that the "rights" pertaining to it are legal rights/freedoms vs fundamental rights?

No. As far as I see it, trespass is a violation of my rights, the moral kind as defined by Ayn Rand, not some legal construct. I want a government to recognize that and protect my rights, so that's when I construct a legal system to enforce objective law and order. If government A is protecting me and government B is protecting my neighbor, then that is a national border. Nothing arbitrary about that.

[FeatherFall]

If disobedience is law-breaking and civil disobedience is visible lawbreaking, I do not follow the reasoning behind judging the first to be immoral and the second to be moral merely because one is caught.

As far as I know, nobody has presented such reasoning for you to follow it. I certainly didn't mean to imply that. The post I quoted is not itself a formal treatment of it, but more of an ad lib style Q&A. I'll explain why I think it's relevant when I'm home.

[SapereAude]

Nothing arbitrary about that.

I don't recall saying anything about any of it being arbitrary. Far from it.

To say something is created is not to call it arbitrary.

[Jake_Ellison]

Does it not stand to reason then that since a border is a construct to begin with that the "rights" pertaining to it are legal rights/freedoms vs fundamental rights?

Sure. In the United States today, legal rights often contradict individual rights. For instance, I have the legal right to file for unemployment, receive welfare if I am disabled, etc. However, exercising those legal rights which aren't individual rights is immoral.

In Laissez-faire Capitalism, there would be no legal rights which aren't individual rights, the law would be the implementation of the principle of individual rights, and would in no way contradict it.

I see it as being over definitions as well: rights vs freedoms

It is a matter of natural rights (or inalienable, moral, fundamental rights)

vs

legal rights (rights that are not pre-existing but are created by society) I would choose to call rights that are legal, not natural "freedoms" and this seems like common usage.

If you define freedom it in a way that includes both the legal right to receive a check in the mail at someone's expense, or deport immigrants, but also the individual rights in their entirety, you are defining a false concept, and denying the Law of Identity:

An object called "allgreeensomered" cannot be all green and a little red at the same time, an attribute of a society (or of a legal system, or of a single person) cannot mean the protection of all rights and the violation of some rights, at the same time, the word Capitalism cannot mean free trade and anarchy, or free trade and corporate dictatorship, at the same time, etc. These are all false concepts, which contain contradictions and therefor violate the Law of Identity. They are illogical.

In LFC, the word freedom the way you define it, and the word freedom the way Ayn Rand defined it, would mean the same thing in a political context. Your definition happens to be longer, and contain the unnecessary distinction between legal rights and individual rights.

[~Sophia~]

In general, people who commit crimes will not advertise them, and will even lie about not having committed them. Years ago, I've had a close friend lie to me about their immigration status.

Usually. Every now and then, however, on this board, you can find people actually advocating breaking laws as means of protest or even influencing change. I assume it is because some people here do lean more Libertarian than Objectivist.

I suppose you'll agree. So, I wonder if you're saying that one ought not to advocate any principles such as "It is only moral to break the law when it violates rights significantly and after weighing the cost of being caught". Is that your point?

As far as I understand what you mean above. Yes.

[~Sophia~]

For instance, I have the legal right to file for unemployment, receive welfare if I am disabled, etc. However, exercising those legal rights which aren't individual rights is immoral.

This is not not true. The answer is - it depends.

[freestyle]

In reading much of this discussion, to me, it wreaks of collectivist thinking and premises. Illegals are not a class of people . They're not a specific race. We're talking about individual human beings that are willfully traveling to and breaking a law created by a recognized government in a particular geographic region (the reasons each of them have will, individually, include both rational and irrational thought). From here, you have limited options when analyzing.

Determine if that government's immigration law [is | is not] an OK one to break from the individual's perspective

Commit to whether not the LAWS ON THE BOOKS [sHOULD | SHOULD NOT] BE ENFORCED BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS

Then, commit to what specific changes, if any, should be made to the laws to promote and further a capitalist and rights respecting society.

Here's where I personally come down on the current situation given all the factors:

It can be OK (morally) for people to "enter at their own risk"

Laws SHOULD be enforced by agents of government

The work has to be done in fixing the society. Drill down into H.B's legalize immigration approach and address specifics of how a government can define its geographical domain and, within that domain, protect men's rights, protect men from criminals and protect men from foreign invaders. Can that be done without any process or system of knowing who crosses into the geographical domain?

It cannot be denied that an individual who enters this particular country illegally becomes, in fact, a tax evader and parasite. (sometimes partially, sometimes in full - Taxes are not filed, public roads & utilities & services are used, etc) This is mostly a consequence of the structure of the mixed-econmic / partially statist society they're entering in to.

So we're left with...

Closing the borders and letting the system break down are the only two alternatives?

Yes. Today that is the truth. Other alternatives exist, but not enough people are interested in actually rolling back the welfare state.

[Jake_Ellison]

It cannot be denied that an individual who enters this particular country illegally becomes, in fact, a tax evader and parasite.

An individual who enters a country illegally does not become a parasite. . q.e.d.

This is irrelevant, but illegals also happen to pay taxes (sales taxes for instance, including for gas, which pays for the roads)

Edited May 12, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[aequalsa]

An individual who enters a country illegally does not become a parasite. . q.e.d.

This is irrelevant, but illegals also happen to pay taxes (sales taxes for instance, including for gas, which pays for the roads)

It's estimated that 75% of illegal aliens use fake Id's.

:. 75% of those entering illegally have no respect for the rights of others.

QED with a small part of the total relevant context.

[SapereAude]

An individual who enters a country illegally does not become a parasite. . q.e.d.

This is irrelevant, but illegals also happen to pay taxes (sales taxes for instance, including for gas, which pays for the roads)

That becomes moot in a state without sales tax.

I work in an industry well known for being the biggest employer of illegal labor.

I have never known an illegal employee that had taxes taken out.

The exception being the few that had illegal identities & SS cards.

Illegal ss cards=identity theft.

[Jake_Ellison]

That becomes moot in a state without sales tax.

I meant federal sales taxes (like the 18.4 cents/gallon tax on gasoline). Also, every state levies extra sales taxes on gas. (including Arizona, which has an extra 18 cents/gallon+1 cpg UST tax + 9 cpg for Diesel, for use class vehicles)

Illegal ss cards=identity theft.

Who's property did they steal?

It's estimated that 75% of illegal aliens use fake Id's.

:. 75% of those entering illegally have no respect for the rights of others.

It is estimated that's wrong, on both counts. (yes, I did the estimation, based on the blaring absence of specifics and a logical link between the two statements)

Edited May 12, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[aequalsa]

That becomes moot in a state without sales tax.

I work in an industry well known for being the biggest employer of illegal labor.

I have never known an illegal employee that had taxes taken out.

The exception being the few that had illegal identities & SS cards.

Illegal ss cards=identity theft.

During my years in construction the many that I saw that had illegal ID's would claim 9 dependents. As a result very, very little would be withheld. When they ran in to difficulty they could get a new card within 30 minutes typically.

[aequalsa]

I meant federal sales taxes (like the 18.4 cents/gallon tax on gasoline). Also, every state levies extra sales taxes on gas. (including Arizona, which has an extra 18 cents/gallon+1 cpg UST tax + 9 cpg for Diesel, for use class vehicles)

Who's property did they steal?

Maybe the people who have to prove they are not responsible for any debt, fines, back taxes, etc. that have been associated to their identities. From personal experience I can tell you that this takes a lot of time and money. Years in some cases.

[Trebor]

During my years in construction the many that I saw that had illegal ID's would claim 9 dependents. As a result very, very little would be withheld. When they ran in to difficulty they could get a new card within 30 minutes typically.

Being a principled advocate of the rule of law, what did you do about these many instances of illegal activity which you witnessed?

[softwareNerd]

It's estimated that 75% of illegal aliens use fake Id's.

:. 75% of those entering illegally have no respect for the rights of others.

No, the use of illegal ids in that type of situation does not qualify as "having no respect for the rights of others". Typically, the abuse here is abuse by the government, not by the person using the Id. Firstly, often no damage is done. When damage is done, then it may constitute a violation of someone's rights; or, it may merely constitute it is a type of collateral damage where the blame rest with the government. One would have to know more about the individual case. Edited May 12, 2010 by softwareNerd

[aequalsa]

No, the use of illegal ids in that type of situation does not qualify as "having no respect for the rights of others". Typically, the abuse here is abuse by the government, not by the person using the Id. Firstly, often no damage is done. When damage is done, then it may constitute a violation of someone's rights; or, it may merely constitute it is a type of collateral damage where the blame rest with the government. One would have to know more about the individual case.

I disagree. In most cases that I witnessed, it at least results in the defrauded individual being suddenly responsible for back taxes. That would just affect the percentages though. To look at that in principle, though, does that mean that if the government takes more money than I can reasonably afford and causes be undue hardship, then I would be justified in burglarizing someones home or place of business to make ends meet. Their lost goods would just be collateral damage caused by the governments immorality, then?

I can see that in an emergency ethic where "a man shooting at me is holding a baby as a shield," in which case the babies safety is damaged by the shooter, not my self-defense, but outside of emergency situations, which illegal immigration clearly is.

[aequalsa]

Being a principled advocate of the rule of law, what did you do about these many instances of illegal activity which you witnessed?

Actually, you might be surprised to learn that I once held your view regarding the law, but I applied it consistently in that I thought all immoral laws should be broken at every opportunity. I granted this right to everyone and not just illegal immigrants. Since that time, due to a very unfortunate personal situation I will not go into here, I had firsthand contact with the machinations of law and gained a greater understanding and appreciation for the process. On paper I would very quickly agree with your view, but I find that in practice, it is untenable. I would call it still just and objective, but far more nuanced and complicated than could be dealt with by a statement like Government ought only protect life, liberty, and property. The statement is certainly true but I find that it tells me very little about the machinations of state and law.

So to answer your question directly, I did nothing. I now see that as a mistake in most cases.

[freestyle]

An individual who enters a country illegally does not become a parasite. . q.e.d.

This is irrelevant, but illegals also happen to pay taxes (sales taxes for instance, including for gas, which pays for the roads)

I specifically noted that it may be "partially".

I will stipulate- there is no way to be in this country and not pay *ANY* taxes since everything is taxed. There's no way to give you exact data on how much tax is evaded by illegals since there aren't valid records of illegal workers working off the books with employers knowingly and willingly paying them.

The city of Los Angeles is broke. Why? One reason: " More than 80 percent of government workers have defined benefits—as opposed to defined-contribution—pension plans. Only about 20 percent of private-sector workers have defined-benefit plans. " newsweek

Like it or not... those are LEGAL parasites. I'm sure most of them don't even think about the fact that they're leeching off the system.

I know from living in LA that people from across the border working "off the books" is not some minor statistical anomaly. I wish I could give you exact numbers, but how could they exist? By the way, they don't necessarily want to be off the books... it just might be too costly or risky to get on the books.

A person who evades taxes and uses government services IS a parasite... a moocher, a leech... Whatever you want to call it. Heck, the not paying taxes part I envy... I wish the risk/reward calculation for that were more in my favor to do that. I could definitely live a happier life that way. I'd have more to spend on myself and my family. I'd have more to give to the exact causes I value. I'd put more money directly into the free market (without the middle man).

I am trying to clearly state that I understand that each individual "illegal" is just that -- An individual. We can look at each man and do whatever math you like about their specific contribution/take in the Federal/State tax system. But the bottom line is that the system is breaking down in many major cities with high illegal populations. Socialism is being exposed... again. You know, the statist does want to "legalize" all the people in the country not on the books. They want to tax them, and make them dependent on them... and, of course, vote for those statist politicians. They'll promise them whatever it takes. Nothing they say will be tied to reality, facts or truth. As it crumbles around them, they'll blame the producers and the successful for being "selfish" and "greedy".

And don't get distracted by the invocation of racism and nationalism to cloud the issue on both sides. That is not the source of why this issue persists. The reason is money.

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence.

...

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world? You are."

When the money is gone, people will go somewhere else to loot it IF they can. Unless, of course, that somewhere else is setup right in the first place and does not allow for parasites.*

*whether they be partial of full parasites

[SapereAude]

Who's property did they steal?

A study on illegal immigration and social security card fraud:

http://www.cis.org/identitytheft

Of all the studies I've read the majority of them (I'm hazarding a guess at 7/10) state the chance that a fake social security card number is actually someone else's at 50/50. This conclusion is based on half of existing numbers being currently issued to living people.

Jake, are you saying you are unaware of the financial & legal consequences of having someone use your social security number?

Edited to clarify the card number, not the card is most often stolen

Edited May 13, 2010 by QuoVadis

[softwareNerd]

Legalizing the few million illegal immigrants already in the U.S. sounds more urgent than ever.

[Trebor]

Actually, you might be surprised to learn that I once held your view regarding the law, but I applied it consistently in that I thought all immoral laws should be broken at every opportunity. I granted this right to everyone and not just illegal immigrants. Since that time, due to a very unfortunate personal situation I will not go into here, I had firsthand contact with the machinations of law and gained a greater understanding and appreciation for the process. On paper I would very quickly agree with your view, but I find that in practice, it is untenable. I would call it still just and objective, but far more nuanced and complicated than could be dealt with by a statement like Government ought only protect life, liberty, and property. The statement is certainly true but I find that it tells me very little about the machinations of state and law.

So to answer your question directly, I did nothing. I now see that as a mistake in most cases.

Well, for one thing, it's presumptuous of you to say that you once held my view. I have never stated that one should break all immoral laws at every opportunity, or anything close to that.

With respect to the principle of individual rights as the fundamental principle that properly guides a moral society's government, there are immoral laws, and such laws should be repealed or enforced. I am in favor of the rule of law, and I'm very much against the rule of men, which is legalized rule of might.

The US today does not exemplify the rule of law. Sure, there are a great number of laws and a great deal is done to enforce them, whether they are proper or not, but that's more what I would call the rule by law, not the rule of law. We are a mixed economy, a mix of freedoms and controls; we are a country with a mix of the rule of law and the rule of men.

You've have made such a fetish about being true to the "rule of law" even so far as to consider the breaking of any law, even the speed limits, to be vigilantism leading to anarchy, that I was curious as to just how consistent you are with respect to what you view as the rule of law.

Given what you've said, I understand that you once held one view, but now hold another, and so I'll rephrase my question (and this is a question to all of you here who insist that the rule of law requires strict obedience to the law, with some exceptions for which I can't grasp a clear principle put forth):

Now, given you current view on the rule of law, if you are aware of any illegal activity, especially illegal activity with respect to laws that you youself consider to be immoral, what do you do about it?

[softwareNerd]

I disagree. In most cases that I witnessed, it at least results in the defrauded individual being suddenly responsible for back taxes.

The damage caused to someone else if the IRS were to come after them is very real, though I doubt the incidence is all that high.

To look at that in principle, though, does that mean that if the government takes more money than I can reasonably afford and causes be undue hardship, then I would be justified in burglarizing someones home or place of business to make ends meet. Their lost goods would just be collateral damage caused by the governments immorality, then?

I would consider a it a breach of personal morality to turn against a fellow victim like that. I don't think the example quite fits, though.

A better example would be: the government makes me go through hardship and I steal something from the government, knowing that there's a pretty good chance that the government will go get recompense from some innocent victim. In most such situations, I would see it as a breach of my personal morality to open someone to that retribution. However, even this example does not do justice to the case.

A still better example is if the government has divided its citizens into two groups, and I am in the group that is under particularly onerous rules; and, I know that if I steal from from the government, they are likely to seek recompense from someone in the group that is not under such a heavy yoke. Further, a majority of the people in that group are the ones cheering the yoke being placed on me. Under this, much closer, scenario, my benevolence is unduly strained. Obviously, that group contains people who are good, and who would like to see me legal, and I cannot poll them before I use their IDs; so, I would not break such a law for anything short of an important value.

[aequalsa]

Well, for one thing, it's presumptuous of you to say that you once held my view. I have never stated that one should break all immoral laws at every opportunity, or anything close to that.

I realize that. I meant to mean was that, I would have agreed with your view, as I understand it, with regard to immigration, that they should break the law since it is immoral and inconveniences them, plus I would have favored breaking all other immoral laws which you don't favor breaking whenever feasible. Your justification for that inconsistency in application is not clear to me but I do understand that it exists. At any rate, sorry for the presumption.

You've have made such a fetish about being true to the "rule of law" even so far as to consider the breaking of any law, even the speed limits, to be vigilantism leading to anarchy, that I was curious as to just how consistent you are with respect to what you view as the rule of law.

Given what you've said, I understand that you once held one view, but now hold another, and so I'll rephrase my question (and this is a question to all of you here who insist that the rule of law requires strict obedience to the law, with some exceptions for which I can't grasp a clear principle put forth):

Now, given you current view on the rule of law, if you are aware of any illegal activity, especially illegal activity with respect to laws that you youself consider to be immoral, what do you do about it?

Not sure I'd call it a fetish. The sexual satidfaction I recieve from discussing this subject, I can assure you is quite minimal.

I tend to prefer to not be involved in other peoples business as much as possible. If I were presented with firm knowledge of illegal behavior and I was obligated legally to report it, then I suppose that I would. That said, I'm not going to go out of my way to look for it, and would attempt to have no knowledge of it. Also, I would say that a great deal of the law is so blurry that I would often not even be sure whether a crime had occurred. I don't have enough interest in it to make it my mission to find and turn in law breakers, if that's what you are wondering. This I apply primarily to my own behavior.

I leave other people to decide whether they are at the point that they wish to be juxtaposed to society. I can imagine some extreme cases where I could see the validity of doing illegal things on an individual basis, but they would need to be situations that were quite bad, where I would also be willing to publicly turn myself in and spend life in prison, rather than allow the injustice to occur.