Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Immigration Law in Arizona

Rate this topic


TheEgoist

Recommended Posts

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.

The number seems high to me. Many immigrants enter legally and their temporary visa allows them to get SS card. They become illegals after their visa expires. I think that the number that actually enters illegally is much smaller (it is dangerous and not that easy).

In terms of the stolen Ids - it is not illegals who obtain them, print fake cards, and sell them. Citizens working for government make all of this possible (and you would be surprised - not necessarily past immigrants themselves).

The problem of stolen identities is a fairly new issue, I think. In the past, 10 years ago or so, it was possible for a visitor to obtain SS number/card legally for the purpose of banking. It looked the same as normal SS card but it had an imprint on it stating "not for employment purposes". Back then illegals who wanted to work would either remove the imprint somehow or try to obtain a fake card without the imprint but with the same number that was linked to their name. They would use this number to file and pay taxes and because it was linked to their name, and in the future they hoped to legalize their stay, I don't know of anyone who would claim dependents they did not have. After your government stopped issuing these cards the problem of stolen identity must have started.

I have not herd of it back then. All of this was of course illegal but it was not directly harming another person by getting them in trouble with the IRS.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

But in the case of stealing someones identity, an illegal immigrant is not stealing or inconveniencing the government or the "privileged" citizens indirectly. They are acting to the direct detriment of another individual. It is a direct violation of rights.

Even ignoring the issue of tax fraud and it's inconvenience to the person whose identity is being used, the impact on the individual can be financially quite large. I had this happen to me and it took me well over a year to repair. In the meantime, no home mortgages, no car loans, no credit cards and your credit record lacks the additional time that looks so good when you have 7 years of revolving credit rather that 5. When this happened. I found that I had bad credit from 1983. I was 7 years old then, to clarify. Even that one was difficult to remove. So I don't know how one would calculate the monetary damage of having your economic life put on hold for a year and a half, but I see it as considerable and my problems were relatively minor. There are many hidden costs to that sort of crime, but they are very real and very much a crime against other individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number seems high to me. Many immigrants enter legally and their temporary visa allows them to get SS card. They become illegals after their visa expires. I think that the number that actually enters illegally is much smaller (it is dangerous and not that easy).

In terms of the stolen Ids - it is not illegals who obtain them, print fake cards, and sell them. Citizens working for government make all of this possible (and you would be surprised - not necessarily past immigrants themselves).

The problem of stolen identities is a fairly new issue, I think. In the past, 10 years ago or so, it was possible for a visitor to obtain SS number/card legally for the purpose of banking. It looked the same as normal SS card but it had an imprint on it stating "not for employment purposes". Back then illegals who wanted to work would either remove the imprint somehow or try to obtain a fake card without the imprint but with the same number that was linked to their name. They would use this number to file and pay taxes and because it was linked to their name, and in the future they hoped to legalize their stay, I don't know of anyone who would claim dependents they did not have. After your government stopped issuing these cards the problem of stolen identity must have started.

I have not herd of it back then. All of this was of course illegal but it was not directly harming another person by getting them in trouble with the IRS.

It seems that circumstances may have changed then. Also, we may just be in different circles. I've seen dozens of 9's on w-2's in a dumpster of a roofing company I worked for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in the case of stealing someones identity, an illegal immigrant is not stealing or inconveniencing the government or the "privileged" citizens indirectly. They are acting to the direct detriment of another individual. It is a direct violation of rights.
I don't see it as direct. The direct abuser in this case is the government. Worse still, this is a democratic government. So, the "privileged citizens" can easily change the system if they do not like it. As a group, they have no excuse, though my heart goes out to the few good ones who get caught in the fire, and my fear is that one day I might be a victim too.

Even ignoring the issue of tax fraud and it's inconvenience to the person whose identity is being used, the impact on the individual can be financially quite large.
Yes, I agreed that the damage was real. I would not wish this on any good person. I think it is increases the urgency to legalize immigrants, or at least to go back to the system that was prevalent not so long ago, where people could get a Tax-Id without showing that they are legal immigrants, or even back to the system where one could get a Social Security number merely by saying "I want to open a bank account" (I seen that happen in 1995.).

Illegal immigrants who use fake IDs can well end up causing harm. As I explained, in many cases, it is quite reasonable for them not to care so much about the rights they violate, given the really important values they are forced to give up instead.

I had this happen to me and it took me well over a year to repair. In the meantime, no home mortgages, no car loans, no credit cards and your credit record lacks the additional time that looks so good when you have 7 years of revolving credit rather that 5.
Meanwhile, if the illegal had not used your ID, he'd have nothing close to this ever -- forget 5 years or 7 years. There is simply no reasonable way for these illegal immigrants to immigrate to the U.S., not within any reasonable time-frame. The talking heads on TV keep saying that these folks should go to the back of the line, but never mention that there really is no line at all for a fair number of them; and for most others, the line is so long that it might as well not exist.

As Sophia pointed out, the law has created a situation where one person's rights are put in conflict with another. A person is violated when he has to spend some years sorting out tax problems and repairing his credit; but, the alternative is that another person's quality of life is threatened in a very serious way. The law has put these illegals in this hobson's choice. The law has caused the conflict of interests and the only moral solution is to reduce the conflict of interest, not to clamp down further on the rights of either victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No problem. Thank you.

There are contexts in which it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to identify a moral principle to guide one's choices. The mixed economy, which is a mixture of rights protecting and rights violating laws, presents us, or myself at least, with such a problem in various ways and to various degrees. In such a context, I have to fall back on the principles of which I am certain, and then use them to try and resolve the problematic issues, as best I can.

With respect to law, individual rights are the fundamental, the certain, the proper foundation, and crime, properly understood, is the violation of individual rights, and that alone. If I didn't hold that individual rights were inalienable, then I might very well be content to hold that I should simple obey the law come what may, regardless of the consequences to myself, and demand that all others obey the law as well, regardless of the consequences to them.

But I do hold that individual rights are absolutes, so I can't hold such a view, a view that would be similar to the Christian view towards God, that the fundamental virtue is faithful obedience to the incomprehensible will of God, consequences be damned.

Were I to hold the view that illegal immigrants are criminals solely by virtue of their being here illegally, then I would say, round them up and kick them out of the country, consequences be damned.

I can't do that.

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

There's another meaning, excessive committment to something.

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.

I was trying to put you, given what you've said with respect to obeying the law in the name of the "rule of law," to a test. If you were consistent, if I have understood you (and others) correctly, then were you to discover that someone you love dearly had broken some victimless crime of serious consequence, then your first move would have to be to call the authorities and turn them in, and damn the consequences. And, with respect to the illegal immigrants, you (and others here) would advocate rounding them all up and kicking them out of the country as quickly and ruthlessly as possible, consequences be damned.

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were consistent, if I have understood you (and others) correctly, then were you to discover that someone you love dearly had broken some victimless crime of serious consequence, then your first move would have to be to call the authorities and turn them in, and damn the consequences. And, with respect to the illegal immigrants, you (and others here) would advocate rounding them all up and kicking them out of the country as quickly and ruthlessly as possible, consequences be damned.

(bold mine)

My answer (since I am in the "others" group) to your part in bold is - you have not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were consistent,..., then your first move would have to be to call the authorities and turn them in,...
I don't think this necessarily follows. One can consider someone's illegal action to also be immoral, and yet not feel an obligation of report them to the government. If I remember right, aEqualsA was asked this many posts ago, and said that he did not consider such reporting to be a something that morality would require.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this necessarily follows. One can consider someone's illegal action to also be immoral, and yet not feel an obligation of report them to the government. If I remember right, aEqualsA was asked this many posts ago, and said that he did not consider such reporting to be a something that morality would require.

There are, if not on this forum, people who are calling for exactly that, the rounding up of all the illegal immigrants and kicking them out of the country - they have broken the law, they are illegal, they have no respect for our laws, no respect for rights, etc., therefore round them up and kick them out.

Is it your view, or more specifically the view of any "others" (I know, Sophia, you'll either say, "It depends," or "No," etc., so I'm not including you in "others," thank you.) here, that such would be a moral option?

If not that, are they to be allowed to stay here in spite of having broken the law, and if so, what punishments do they deserve by virtue of having broken our immigration laws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem. Thank you.

There are contexts in which it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to identify a moral principle to guide one's choices. The mixed economy, which is a mixture of rights protecting and rights violating laws, presents us, or myself at least, with such a problem in various ways and to various degrees. In such a context, I have to fall back on the principles of which I am certain, and then use them to try and resolve the problematic issues, as best I can.

No disagreements with this.

With respect to law, individual rights are the fundamental, the certain, the proper foundation, and crime, properly understood, is the violation of individual rights, and that alone.

This is good foundation, but it, for me doesn't get very far out of the gate. Especially, since as you pointed out above, the mixed economy, which is our current given, through its inconsistencies puts the rights of people into conflict. Because of the addition of this factor my evaluation is no longer properly based on the consistent protection of rights, but rather on "how much of my own rights will I loose by granting rights to others?" As a south western resident When I consider immigration, I have to look at the numbers, the increasing crime on our border and in my neighborhood, trampling and destroying privately owned property on the way through, the bankrupting of hospitals that I might one day need, the costs of losing my identity in part or whole, the increase in taxes that I don't and can't easily avoid which they do, the entitlements which I don't receive but pay for, I am left with the unfortunate realization that respecting the rights of illegal immigrants requires me to sacrifice my own. Its little less then a request that I give up my own "inalienable" rights so that others may have theirs. In theory, open immigration is no threat to me. Currently, in actuality, it very much is.

If I didn't hold that individual rights were inalienable, then I might very well be content to hold that I should simple obey the law come what may, regardless of the consequences to myself, and demand that all others obey the law as well, regardless of the consequences to them.

But I do hold that individual rights are absolutes, so I can't hold such a view, a view that would be similar to the Christian view towards God, that the fundamental virtue is faithful obedience to the incomprehensible will of God, consequences be damned.

When you say inalienable, what do you mean exactly?

Were I to hold the view that illegal immigrants are criminals solely by virtue of their being here illegally, then I would say, round them up and kick them out of the country, consequences be damned.

I can't do that.

Not solely, but people who are willing to break laws, in general, are not breaking laws because they are standing for truth and justice, but rather because they have little regard for the law and find it financially lucrative to do so.

This filtering occurs with drug dealers also. If all drug dealers were just dealing as a principled act of defiance, there wouldn't be the amount of real crime attached to it that there is. Because drug dealing is illegal, it is lucrative so what you get for the most part, is dirt bags. I realize that there are some very fine, morally conscious drug dealers out there, especially in the medical marijuana industry, but that doesn't change the general statistical facts that most drug dealers are, in fact, dirt bags. In a fully rights respecting society, walgreens would sell the recreational drugs for a song and dance with no negative costs and associative crimes. Likewise with immigration, it would neither rob my purse nor stub my toe to have the whole population of the world move in. Hell, it would do wonders for property values Until such time as that rights respecting republic occurs however, the nature of the system is such that the people who are willing to break the law to come here pose a real and serious threat to my own and really all American citizens rights.

I was trying to put you, given what you've said with respect to obeying the law in the name of the "rule of law," to a test. If you were consistent, if I have understood you (and others) correctly, then were you to discover that someone you love dearly had broken some victimless crime of serious consequence, then your first move would have to be to call the authorities and turn them in, and damn the consequences. And, with respect to the illegal immigrants, you (and others here) would advocate rounding them all up and kicking them out of the country as quickly and ruthlessly as possible, consequences be damned.

First, I would see it as disrespectful for someone close to me to put me in the situation of being an accomplice to some illegal activity that they were engaged in without having consulted me first. In some situations I suppose that I would, consequences not damned but proper, but I don't view enforcement of the law as being my responsibility as a general rule(sort of my point all along, ya know :worry: ) . I would undoubtedly advise them to not break the law and attempt some legal work around and perhaps even judge them harshly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it as direct. The direct abuser in this case is the government. Worse still, this is a democratic government. So, the "privileged citizens" can easily change the system if they do not like it. As a group, they have no excuse, though my heart goes out to the few good ones who get caught in the fire, and my fear is that one day I might be a victim too.

The original cause of the conflict of interests is the government, but another individual choosing to take my identity costing me time and money is a direct attack by him on me. He isn't forced to do it in any sense. It is a moral choice on his part and he is wholly culpable for the damage caused. We may have to agree to disagree on this one as I can't fathom this not being a direct and voluntary infringement of my rights by another individual.

Yes, I agreed that the damage was real. I would not wish this on any good person. I think it is increases the urgency to legalize immigrants, or at least to go back to the system that was prevalent not so long ago, where people could get a Tax-Id without showing that they are legal immigrants, or even back to the system where one could get a Social Security number merely by saying "I want to open a bank account" (I seen that happen in 1995.).
Reagan tried the amnesty thing before in the 80s. Obviously it doesn't fix it except for that one minute that no one is here illegally. The change would have to be more fundamental to avoid this reoccurring, I think. It would serve to increase tax collection rates though.

Illegal immigrants who use fake IDs can well end up causing harm. As I explained, in many cases, it is quite reasonable for them not to care so much about the rights they violate, given the really important values they are forced to give up instead.Meanwhile, if the illegal had not used your ID, he'd have nothing close to this ever -- forget 5 years or 7 years. There is simply no reasonable way for these illegal immigrants to immigrate to the U.S., not within any reasonable time-frame. The talking heads on TV keep saying that these folks should go to the back of the line, but never mention that there really is no line at all for a fair number of them; and for most others, the line is so long that it might as well not exist.
I understand the difficulty and immorality of the current immigration system but advocating the reduction of my rights for the benefit of others because their right to a job here is more important than mine is not only an incorrect assumption but probably the worst way to convince an objectivist of the worthiness of your cause. I'm just sayin.

As Sophia pointed out, the law has created a situation where one person's rights are put in conflict with another. A person is violated when he has to spend some years sorting out tax problems and repairing his credit; but, the alternative is that another person's quality of life is threatened in a very serious way. The law has put these illegals in this hobson's choice. The law has caused the conflict of interests and the only moral solution is to reduce the conflict of interest, not to clamp down further on the rights of either victim.
I absolutely agree with you about the only moral choice, but disagree strongly that their economic well being should be primary to my own in any sense and that their misfortune gives them any claim on my life or any moral justification to violate my rights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Sophia pointed out, the law has created a situation where one person's rights are put in conflict with another. A person is violated when he has to spend some years sorting out tax problems and repairing his credit; but, the alternative is that another person's quality of life is threatened in a very serious way. The law has put these illegals in this hobson's choice. The law has caused the conflict of interests and the only moral solution is to reduce the conflict of interest, not to clamp down further on the rights of either victim.

hmm... What is this exact "quality of life" right you are thinking of?

What is the right that allows me to travel to any given geographical area with an established government in place and be free of the threat of that institution's law enforcement?

"The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property."

...I'd bet some people can still buy their way in. :worry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm... What is this exact "quality of life" right you are thinking of?
Quality of life? I mean the type of harm that aEqualsA suffered because someone stole his identity -- conversely, the types of values he could have rightfully enjoyed if someone had left him alone. (I almost used the terms "life" or "values", but thought a more colloquial term would be clearer.)

What is the right that allows me to travel to any given geographical area with an established government in place and be free of the threat of that institution's law enforcement?
If there is nothing about you that makes you an objective threat, and if the place to which you wish to travel is not some secret military area (or some such place that is mostly off limits to all anyway), and if the place to which you travel is not owned by some property-owner who wishes you off his property, then you have a right to travel there.

Travelling there does not free you from the threat of law enforcement. Not all threats by law-enforcement are moral threats. So, while you are never free of the the threat, that does not make all threats legitimate.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A study on illegal immigration and social security card fraud:

http://www.cis.org/identitytheft

That link contains no evidence that illegal immigrants are thieves. So the question stands, and it's not that complicated a question. You alleged theft, you should be able to identify the victim.

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.

A statement starting with "mybe" is not evidence of a crime. If you don't know, you should not call someone a thief. A theft is a specific action, in which one person takes another person's property, on purpose. So who's property is being stolen, and how?

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?

Argument from analogy. Entirely illogical.

A person who evades taxes and uses government services IS a parasite... a moocher, a leech

I don't care how many times you repeat it, it won't make it true. It is total nonsense to define a parasite as someone who manages to not be robbed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A statement starting with "mybe" is not evidence of a crime. If you don't know, you should not call someone a thief. A theft is a specific action, in which one person takes another person's property, on purpose. So who's property is being stolen, and how?

Lucky we are not in a court of law where I am trying to prove a particular crime occurred then. "Maybe" was meant in the rhetorical, "You can't seriously believe that there is no victimization with the theft of someones identity," kind of way. If you honestly don't understand how stealing someone's id is a proper crime then I'll try to explain it to you when I have time, but I honestly just think you're pulling my leg.

Argument from analogy. Entirely illogical.

I'm not sure where you studied your polemics, but argument by analogy is perfectly valid as it is a method by which items with similar characteristics can be held together conceptually and compared for predictive value. In other words, it is a process of induction, essentially. You can make the claim that the similarities are weak and my analogy is poor and then show the dissimilarities if you like to support your view, but an argument from analogy itself does not disqualify its validity. To claim otherwise, well, that's illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About visible non-rights violating crimes, and the principle that one shouldn't commit them: I think it was premature of me to bring up Hsieh's quote. I don't think I completely understand the argument. Are we to follow this principle because it erodes our own understanding of law and the rule of law, or because we expose ourselves to the risk that others interpret our actions as support of such erosion?

I absolutely agree with you about the only moral choice, but disagree strongly that their economic well being should be primary to my own in any sense and that their misfortune gives them any claim on my life or any moral justification to violate my rights.
I agree with this. But if I am to understand you correctly, I need some clarification of the above quote. It seems to me that this quote, to be consistent with the whole of your position, requires you to justify your (or, at least your government's) violation of the rights of immigrants NOT because you have an economic claim or misfortune, but because the law of a non-dictatorship must be upheld as a moral absolute. But you confused the issue for me a little earlier when you mentioned the fact that hospitals might go bankrupt because of these people. That seems to me to be a sort of economic misfortune for you that you're using to justify your government's violation of their rights.

Edit:Clarity

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucky we are not in a court of law where I am trying to prove a particular crime occurred then. "Maybe" was meant in the rhetorical, "You can't seriously believe that there is no victimization with the theft of someones identity," kind of way. If you honestly don't understand how stealing someone's id is a proper crime then I'll try to explain it to you when I have time, but I honestly just think you're pulling my leg.

I know and respect several people who are in the US without government permission, and who resort to illegal paperwork to find employment. Someone on this forum accused them of being thieves, and another person of being parasites.

I refuse to believe either accusation, without logical proof, and I am irritated by anyone's attempts, including yours, to defend that baseless accusation with maybe's, rationalizations and fallacious arguments.

That's all. If you don't have time to prove something, shut up about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to offer another perspective because I do think that the focus on illegal immigrants as a damaging group to your economy is a bit misplaced and their impact exaggerated. It has almost like a smoke and mirrors effect taking the focus from problems and violations of much bigger magnitude.

Population of US: 309,264,200

Number of illegal immigrants: ~ 11,000,000 ends up being about 3.5% (and only some % of those are looters) If your hospitals go bankrupt it won't be because of illegal immigrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That link contains no evidence that illegal immigrants are thieves. So the question stands, and it's not that complicated a question. You alleged theft, you should be able to identify the victim.

A statement starting with "mybe" is not evidence of a crime. If you don't know, you should not call someone a thief. A theft is a specific action, in which one person takes another person's property, on purpose. So who's property is being stolen, and how?

Argument from analogy. Entirely illogical.

I don't care how many times you repeat it, it won't make it true. It is total nonsense to define a parasite as someone who manages to not be robbed.

Your entire post is based on your incomplete reading of the post so I can't help you out here.

I said indentity theft/SS# theft.

If you do not believe that identity theft is a crime because an identity is not a tangible" thing" I cannot help you out either.

edited to note- I don't recall calling anyone a parasite in this thread???

Edited by QuoVadis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this. But if I am to understand you correctly, I need some clarification of the above quote. It seems to me that this quote, to be consistent with the whole of your position, requires you to justify your (or, at least your government's) violation of the rights of immigrants NOT because you have an economic claim or misfortune, but because the law of a non-dictatorship must be upheld as a moral absolute. But you confused the issue for me a little earlier when you mentioned the fact that hospitals might go bankrupt because of these people. That seems to me to be a sort of economic misfortune for you that you're using to justify your government's violation of their rights.

Edit:Clarity

I'm sorry for the confusion. Let me try to clarify my views and arguments in some...

That whole post that you refer to was only peripherally relevant to the argument for the rule of law. It is in response to the notion that there is little or no cost or damages caused by illegal immigrants to existing citizens. I meant it to be demonstrative of the way in which our rights are brought into conflict by the creation of the welfare state and that their right to move here for economic advantage or to avoid inconvenience, or even poverty, in no way trumps my rights to property and security which their illegal activities are a detriment to. The act of inviting and tolerating people with little regard for the legal process carries with it a great deal of cost. This is especially true in a welfare state, but would also be true in a capitalist state. By that reasoning, if I were, through chance, born as the son of a poor construction worker who never made much money because 45% went to the government each year, than I would be justified in stealing money from the son of a upper middle class accountant, who through entirely legal means had acquired a small fortune by only losing 18% of his income to the government. That argument is based on some egalitarian premises about chance circumstances.

Even if by some small miracle we achieved a mostly rights respecting government,and to secure its borders there was some 3 day wait for people in failed or corrupt states to be admitted, while background checks were completed. To some percentage, this would still be wholly unacceptable and unreasonable, and they might try to get in illegally. Enforcement, in this case, is necessary and proper and breaking the law would still be immoral, despite any inconvenience this short breach of their liberty might cause them. This is where the rule of law becomes relevant to me. I argue that this is true up to the point at which dictatorship occurs. At this point, I acknowledge some room for interpretation, since what is tolerable for some by the government may not be tolerable for others. I see that decision as a moral absolute once it is made though. In effect it means that the moral agent would prefer anarchy and the elimination of the state and the current rule of (wrongful) law to existing under so corrupt a regime. This assumes the moral agent acts on principle rather than pragmatics though. The fact that so many other proper laws are broken by illegals implies to me that for the most part, their decision to break the law stems more from economic pragmatism than principle. Which gets to the third part of my view on this, which is rational self interest.

By way of analogy(this ones for you, Jake) breaking the law is hardly ever in a person's best interests. When I was young and quite poor, they started mandating car insurance which raised the price of my premiums by about 300% over night. I couldn't afford it so I drove without it(had to get to work on different construction sites, so a bike seemed impractical). It worked in the short term since I paid no insurance. In the long-term it cost me 2 $500 tickets and extortionately high insurance rates once I did get insurance, because I had been uninsured for more that 6 months(perfect driving record was irrelevant) In addition to the cost being much higher their was considerable psychological cost in the fear of being pulled over and getting the bigger tickets, constant concern about getting in an accident and being liable, and even far less desire to go out and do things that i didn't have to in order to avoid the constant sense of risk and danger. Ultimately I just sucked it up and got a third job and no sleep.

Even in cases like this where the law is immoral, breaking it puts the lawbreaker into opposition with the rest of that society. They become your enemy and you theirs. This is what I see as the primary justification for obeying the rule of law while it is tolerable.

The visibility argument might have some validity, but I have to think about it more or hear more arguments. Right now it seems like performing sodomy in your own home when it's illegal, may not be relevant since it is a truly unenforceable law.

No personal longterm consequences could develop, there is absolutely no impact on any other individual(assuming consent here) and there is no criminal industry which it builds around itself. Again, I am not positive, but I am leaning to seeing an invisible crime with no ripple, so to speak, as an appropriate exception.

An example of a case where it might would be different would be someone fleeing a totalitarian state for their lives. So differentiating political refugees from economic ones may have some validity in the sense that the right to life and self-ownership is the primary, and in certain emergency situations such as that, certain restrictions on corollary rights might be proper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Population of US: 309,264,200 Number of illegal immigrants: ~ 11,000,000 ends up being about 3.5% (and only some % of those are looters) If your hospitals go bankrupt it won't be because of illegal immigrants.

They are not uniformly distributed but concentrated in certain preferred locations to the degree that they do become a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know and respect several people who are in the US without government permission, and who resort to illegal paperwork to find employment. Someone on this forum accused them of being thieves, and another person of being parasites.

I refuse to believe either accusation, without logical proof, and I am irritated by anyone's attempts, including yours, to defend that baseless accusation with maybe's, rationalizations and fallacious arguments.

That's all. If you don't have time to prove something, shut up about it.

First, I'll speak as I please until a moderator asks me to do otherwise. Your feelings being hurt because you can't handle a generalization based on many facts has no place in an argument.

I don't know your friends and can't(and haven't) made any comments about them personally. Generalizations are judgments. It is exactly how our brains function. We look for similarities and differences in groups of concretes, people, numbers, and everything else. It is perfectly valid and reasonable to like Californians and hate new yorkers, or love high school drop outs and despise college grads, as a general response to people of a particular culture or circumstance. The only potential problem with a generalization is if you believe that it applies in all cases. I clearly do not.

Rates like 75% id theft and facts like phoenix having the second highest rate of kidnappings in the world and all the other problems brought up on this thread are readily available on the internet. I am not going to reproduce them for you. If you choose to ignore the real world context and circumstance then there is nothing I can say by way of logical deductions to get you from Ayn Rand said A is A to illegals commit more crimes. In fact, that won't even get me to the existence of Arizona as a place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not uniformly distributed but concentrated in certain preferred locations to the degree that they do become a problem.

In addition, many consider 11 million to be a low ball number and 20million + is more likely. If someone lived in Maine or North Dakota, you would be right, Sophia, but Phoenix or LA would be another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an Objectivist forum, and using words the way Ayn Rand used them helps with communication and understanding. I already posted Rand's definition of the word freedom in politics, and it's entirely consistent with his use. Your use is the fraudulent one, aimed not at differentiating between freedom and rights, but at negating some rights with this wordplay.

Okay, let's play dueling Ayn Rand:

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.

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

Read every word in those two statements. In the first, she is writing about a right and a man. A right defines his freedom. Right is a universal, that is, the right of the man and the right of all others in society. In this context, though, it is the right of others that defines the man's freedom of action ("freedom to").

Defines it, how? That is answered in the second statement. A man's freedom of action may not include physically coercing another. That is a limitation on his freedom of action.

Others' rights define a man's freedom, limiting what he may do to others.

A man's rights define the freedom of others (his "freedom from"), limiting what others may do to him.

"Rights" and "freedom" are flip sides of the same coin, but they are reciprocal to each other.

The statement that Cainscalia called me on was:

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

What Cainscalia wrote was:

Freedom is a right. You cannot have your rights infringed in the protection of your rights. That is a contradiction on a level that really makes me wonder...

Now read every word in those statements.

"Freedom is a right."

"You cannot have your rights infringed in the protection of your rights."

You see the problems here? In addition to conflating "right" with "freedom" as one-and-the-same concept, he is context-dropping. If your rights and your freedoms are the only things to consider, there is no social or political context, which is essential to Rand's definitions.

It is the rights of others that define and limit your freedom of action, and your rights that define and limit their freedom of action.

You wrote:

Your use is the fraudulent one, aimed not at differentiating between freedom and rights, but at negating some rights with this wordplay.

This is an Objectivist forum. I don't mind being accused of intellectual dishonesty, or even fraud, as long as my accuser is willing to rationally back that accusation with something other than bald assertions and flimsy logic. (I won't hold my breath.)

By the way:

Physical force, breach of contract, fraud, and theft are the primary examples of force, as defined by Objectivism. Trespassing is the unauthorized use of another's property, and is equivalent to theft. A person's identity is his "property" in that only he has the right to take any actions in his own name, therefore identity theft is theft, regardless of the harm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the rights of others that define and limit your freedom of action

This is wrong, and it causes no end of confusion.

Freedom of action within a social context has to be defined as "to guarantee the actions that would be possible out of a social context are not impeded by force in the social context" or, in other words, that no one stop you from doing something you could do if you were in isolation.

The fact that you cannot shoot another man in the head is not "limit" on your freedom of action - because freedom of action does not include, has never included and cannot include killing other men. Out of a social context there are no other men to kill. In a social context killing other men is a crime. In both cases it is an action which is not within your rights (in the first case by impossibility, in the second by the fact that it violates rights). Yet, even though this act is not permitted and is barred by force, you are as free in (an Objectivist) society as you would be in isolation. Respecting another's rights is not a reduction of one's freedom.

therefore identity theft is theft

Actually, identity theft is fraud. It is misrepresenting yourself to be that which you are not. Of course you may commit theft while under the guise of another person's name - but that is a second, additional, crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quality of life? I mean the type of harm that aEqualsA suffered because someone stole his identity -- conversely, the types of values he could have rightfully enjoyed if someone had left him alone. (I almost used the terms "life" or "values", but thought a more colloquial term would be clearer.)

If there is nothing about you that makes you an objective threat, and if the place to which you wish to travel is not some secret military area (or some such place that is mostly off limits to all anyway), and if the place to which you travel is not owned by some property-owner who wishes you off his property, then you have a right to travel there.

Travelling there does not free you from the threat of law enforcement. Not all threats by law-enforcement are moral threats. So, while you are never free of the the threat, that does not make all threats legitimate.

You said, "A person is violated when he has to spend some years sorting out tax problems and repairing his credit; but, the alternative is that another person's quality of life is threatened in a very serious way."

I thought you were referring to two different people: first, the identity theft victim, and second, the non-citizen (illegal) being disallowed entry into a country. Were you only referring to the first?

I don't think man's rights, properly understood, can contradict. It couldn't be an individual "right if two individuals could lay claim to it. Also, a right cannot impose any obligations on another (other than respecting rights).

So, if a group of individuals create an institution (and then call it government), and then (within that institution) they form rules and laws for the protection and lawful use of the property they have laid claim to (as a government), then -- Why would you say they do not have a right to hire a watchman to stand at the border and get documentation from anyone who wishes to enter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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