Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Immigration Law in Arizona

Rate this topic


TheEgoist
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quo Vadis talks about a system where immigrants are asked to show that they have the means to support themselves, at some basic level. Either they already have assets, or they have a firm job-offer.

I could vote for that, if it were just that they were asked to show they have permission or a right to be here. (Although I don't think employment ought to be a necessity. They can easily have purchased some property or rented someone's property and then proceed to look for work, or just a show of permission to stay with a resident already here.) I might even consider a plan which requires for resident alien status a citizen to have buisness with them or a citizen to accept the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that every time ANYONE, immigrant or not, goes on welfare they are violating rights.

That's not true. See the lexicon entry, "Government Grants and Scholarships."

The government, by creating a welfare state and forcing the citizens to support it, is violating rights. Of course, the government has created the welfare state with the support of those who have argued for it previously. They are morally responsible for the creation of the welfare state, just as we are now responsible for it's continued existence.

Those who accept welfare are not in the position of violating rights; they have no power to do so; they're not forcing others to support them, the government is. This is true even of immigrants, legal or not, who are permitted any welfare. If they stay here, they too will be forced to support the welfare state. Accepting welfare is not an implicit sanction of welfare.

The question, just as with respect to government grants and scholarships, is whether or not individuals morally support the existence of welfare; their only "power" is that of moral, intellectual sanction. This is true whether the individual accepts welfare or not. You can damn the welfare recipient who supports welfare, but you should equally damn those non-recipients who support welfare. The moral responsibility of the welfare state rests upon those who support it morally and intellectually.

This whole issue over illegal immigration is bringing to light the evil nature of the welfare state (and the "war on drugs"), not the "evil" of "illegal immigration." It's an opportunity to bring that evil to light and to advocate the dismantling of welfare, in all it's forms of forced redistribution, in the name of individual rights, as the solution.

Otherwise, if we don't, if we hold that the welfare state first needs to be dismantled before we are willing to cease violating the rights of individuals to immigrate, then we further the support for the welfare state with the implicit statement, "No, not yet. Let's violate the rights of some individuals because our rights are being violated by others." The welfare state, by this process, will never be dismantled. It will merely bankrupt the country and speed up the transition to a total state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a system where immigrants are asked to show that they have the means to support themselves, at some basic level. Either they already have assets, or they have a firm job-offer.

I'm sorry, but that's complete baloney (or Bologna). When someone moves from one state to another, are they required to prove that they have a job offer or a concrete means to support themselves in their new destination? No. And there is no reason for anyone to be forced to prove that-- as long as they commit no crimes-- in order to go somewhere.

Let them fend for themselves and find whatever opportunities they can. That's how many immigrants did it in the past. If you're going to whine about welfare, then get off your tuckus and do something about dismantling the welfare system instead of punishing people who want to be Americans for the socialist tendencies of current Americans. Trebor put it very clearly.

Edited by kainscalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but that's complete baloney (or Bologna). ... Let them fend for themselves and find whatever opportunities they can.
Personally, I would welcome any system that was a substantial improvement over what we have today even if it were far from ideal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Reisman has presented several arguments of how to get from "here to there." What's important is that he argues on the basis of fundamental principles which, even if they cannot be implemented immediately, are the standard by which to guide any process of transition.

See the html version of chapter 20 of his book, "Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics," for some well thought out ideas.

Edit to add: Dr. Reisman has also made available, in html, chapter 1 of his book.

The entire book is available, without charge, in pdf format here.

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those who questioned the drain of resources apart from welfare arising from illegals here is a study done by an independent think-tank on the matter, just the facts:

Note that their findings show that even if they were all given amnesty and started paying taxes they would STILL be a drain:

http://cis.org/node/54

Quotes from that article:

"With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services."

So should we also block people from having kids unless they can prove they have a high education? This isn't immigrant-specific.

"Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion)."

With the exception of prison and courts (which would not be as costly if it weren't for the drug war), these are all examples of welfare. More importantly, they aren't immigrant specific. Should we ban new children because we have a public school system, or should we get rid of the public school system?

"Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them."

So it's not even the immigrants, its the Americans.

Overall, all this document proves is that the government takes more from the higher income-earners and gives more to the lower income-earners. It demonstrates nothing specific to immigration. The fact is, a large portion of current citizens also get more from government than they put in, but that's not an excuse for curtailing their rights. This is an argument for dismantling the welfare state, not curtailing immigration.

Immigrants have no moral obligation to have a certain minimum stolen from them by the government, nor are they to blame for the fact that the government spends money on them. Violating the rights of the immigrant doesn't help anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those who questioned the drain of resources apart from welfare arising from illegals here is a study done by an independent think-tank on the matter, just the facts:

Note that their findings show that even if they were all given amnesty and started paying taxes they would STILL be a drain:

http://cis.org/node/54

Again, that is an argument against the welfare state, not for restrictions to immigration. Apart from welfare, there is no "drain" except when the government enacts protectionism and restrictions to the free flow of labor (in addition to its insane spending and taxation.) That site promotes protectionism, not laissez-faire.

If restricting immigration helps the economy, then why not restrict interregional and interlocal immigration? Just as different wage rates exist between the US and Mexico, Haiti, or China, for instance, such differences also exist between New York and Alabama, or between Manhattan, the Bronx, and Harlem. Thus, if it were true that international restrictions to migration could make an entire nation prosperous and strong, it must also be true that interregional and interlocal migration control could make regions and localities prosperous and strong. In fact, this is something enacted in many parts of the USSR, including the forcible assignment and relocation of entire populations. Why not just assign a perfect number of laborers to each part of the United States, so that nothing gets "drained" and make it illegal for anyone to go anywhere unless the government's planners approve of it?

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, that is an argument against the welfare state, not for restrictions to immigration. Apart from welfare, there is no "drain" except when the government enacts protectionism and restrictions to the free flow of labor (in addition to its insane spending and taxation.) That site promotes protectionism, not laissez-faire.

If restricting immigration helps the economy, then why not restrict interregional and interlocal immigration? Just as different wage rates exist between the US and Mexico, Haiti, or China, for instance, such differences also exist between New York and Alabama, or between Manhattan, the Bronx, and Harlem. Thus, if it were true that international restrictions to migration could make an entire nation prosperous and strong, it must also be true that interregional and interlocal migration control could make regions and localities prosperous and strong. In fact, this is something enacted in many parts of the USSR, including the forcible assignment and relocation of entire populations. Why not just assign a perfect number of laborers to each part of the United States, so that nothing gets "drained" and make it illegal for anyone to go anywhere unless the government's planners approve of it?

You don't think that will be coming shortly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the text of Governor Jan Brewer's speech, given today.

Thank God she says, "I have listened patiently to both sides. I have considered the significance of this new law long into the night. I have prayed for strength and prayed for our state."

I guess God decided Repubs shouldn't get a single Latino vote in the fall :) A pretty smart choice on His part, if this is what that collection of fascists is after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To go back to the start I guess it needs to be determined that one has a right to enter and to inhabit any country they want.

In my understanding of rights this is not the case.

Rights in the Ayn Rand lexicon:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

Here is my take on it- the immigrant gains value by coming to the United States, otherwise they would not be coming. It is the right of an individual to seek out the best for themselves. Obviously.

However:

"As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights." Because of the nature of our society when one chooses to enter it obligations are being imposed on the citizens of the US when one enters illegally.

"Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object." It is my understanding that one has a right to action-that is- the right to work for and apply for entrance into the US. But one does not have a right to be in the US.

The United States is a tangible thing. Every day everyone uses the resources that have been created by and are being maintained by people that are here legally paying their taxes. Now, it can be argued (as some here have) that it is the government's fault for creating immoral social programs and entitlements therefore illegal immigrants are not to be blamed for taking advantage of and using them.

But the fact is that there is measurable, tangible, objective harm being done in this way.

You can't just say "those programs exist anyway so the argument is invalid" because it does make a difference whether 1 million or 3 million are on it.

For every person using a system that does not pay into it those that do pay into the system must be forced to pay more.

So, if we can stay away from the tried and true personal assualts on anyone that disagrees with you.. here we go... I am open to your argument that it is a violation of individual rights to deport people that are here illegally. I honestly want to know what is right and to do what is right.

But first I need hard facts that point to it being a unconditional right to enter this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may also want to read the actual law as I feel that many here are responding to media hysterics and hearsay as opposed to what is actually in the law.

The law in fact only reiterates what is in federal law.

They have only taken the federal law and made it enforcible at the state level since the federal government is not enforcing its own laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may also want to read the actual law as I feel that many here are responding to media hysterics and hearsay as opposed to what is actually in the law.

The law in fact only reiterates what is in federal law.

They have only taken the federal law and made it enforcible at the state level since the federal government is not enforcing its own laws.

You're right, I haven't read it. I did sample it though, and here's a random provision (I swear it's the first one I read):

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON

IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED

ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

As far as I know, federal law specifies the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency as the entity charged with enforcing immigration laws. If you are aware of any legislation charging all law enforcement officers in Arizona, or any other group which includes all law enforcement officers in Arizona, in their entirety, with the enforcement of those laws, please post its text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, I haven't read it. I did sample it though, and here's a random provision (I swear it's the first one I read):

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON

IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED

ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

As far as I know, federal law specifies the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency as the entity charged with enforcing immigration laws. If you are aware of any legislation charging all law enforcement officers in Arizona, or any other group which includes all law enforcement officers in Arizona, in their entirety, with the enforcement of those laws, please post its text.

You may want to rethink your post.

"As far as I know, federal law specifies the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency as the entity charged with enforcing immigration laws. If you are aware of any legislation charging all law enforcement officers in Arizona, or any other group which includes all law enforcement officers in Arizona, in their entirety, with the enforcement of those laws, please post its text."

Because this doesn't make sense as written to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may also want to read the actual law as I feel that many here are responding to media hysterics and hearsay as opposed to what is actually in the law.
No, I don't think people are misunderstanding what the law says. I know that I am not. The law says that an officer may detain a person who is suspected of being in the U.S. illegally and hand that person over to the Feds. The law does not allow the officer to detain a person specifically for this, but allows an officer to do this as part of any legal contact. This means that if an illegal alien who has been raped tells this to a police officer and the officer has some reason to think she is illegal, he should start a process that (eventually) hands her over to the Feds.

The difference of opinion here is not about any misunderstanding about the content of the law. It is about whether this content is good or bad.

The law in fact only reiterates what is in federal law. They have only taken the federal law and made it enforcible at the state level since the federal government is not enforcing its own laws.
No, the law does not "re-iterate" Federal law. One might say that it reiterates the spirit of Federal law. It takes a bad Federal law that the Feds find difficult to apply, and it recruits the police forces in the state to actively attempt to enforce the intent of that Federal law. This is clear to the side that is arguing against this law.

Enforcement is a hugely important part of law. Many states have all sorts of outdated laws that they never enforce, and nobody bothers to take them off the books. The de jure law often matters less than the de facto law. This state law will increase enforcement of bad Federal law a huge magnitude above what it is today. This is what is wrong with this law.

In addition, it also leads itself to racial-profiling; but, that is -- relatively -- a minor issue.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It codifies federal law.
Codify? Whatever you call it... It ensures that Federal Law is taken to a much higher degree of enforcement. It puts teeth into Federal law. It aids the Feds. It makes the Federal law real. etc. etc.

Whatever way one puts it, that is exactly the reason it is bad: because it gives teeth to evil law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the law as evil. It needs reformed, streamlined, but we have the right, as a sovereign nation to determine who immigrates here. We also have a right to deport those who circumvent the legal procedures. Those who came here, applied for legal status and/or underwent the process to become a naturalized citizen are being cheated by those who have no regard for the rule of law.

I seem to remember a little place named Galt's Gulch who had rather strict policies concerning who was allowed in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the law as evil. It needs reformed, streamlined, but we have the right, as a sovereign nation to determine who immigrates here.

No you don't. You do not have the right to initiate force against another individual. Ever. Even if you refer to yourself as "the Nation", my reply is the same: Mr. Nation, don't be a thug.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We designate agents of the government to use "force," if necessary, on our behalf to enforce the rule of law. Apprehension of those who violate the established law of a legitimate government is not the initiation of force for arbitrary reasons by a private citizen, nor for the purpose of enforcing the dictates of a tyrannical and illegitimate government, which is what is being referred to by the term. Intent and context are important. Some of you are sounding a bit too much like Libertarian anarchists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I didn't hear the President's immigration speech, but I must comment on one paragraph I've read:

"We're a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We're also a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals."

The actual truth is: We're a nation of laws, and we must enforce or repeal our laws."

Harry Binswanger, "The Solution to "Illegal Immigration"

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of the nature of our society when one chooses to enter it obligations are being imposed on the citizens of the US when one enters illegally.

Obligations imposed by whom?

But the fact is that there is measurable, tangible, objective harm being done in this way.

Objective harm being done by whom?

For every person using a system that does not pay into it those that do pay into the system must be forced to pay more.

Forced to pay more by whom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the law as evil. It needs reformed, streamlined, but we have the right, as a sovereign nation to determine who immigrates here. We also have a right to deport those who circumvent the legal procedures. Those who came here, applied for legal status and/or underwent the process to become a naturalized citizen are being cheated by those who have no regard for the rule of law.

I seem to remember a little place named Galt's Gulch who had rather strict policies concerning who was allowed in.

Galt's Gulch was private property.

"The private owners of land have the right to use or sell or rent their land for any peaceful purpose. This includes employing immigrants and selling them food and clothing and all other goods, and selling or renting housing to them. If individual private landowners are willing to accept the presence of immigrants on their property as employees, customers, or tenants, that should be all that is required for the immigrants to be present. Anyone else who attempts to determine the presence of absence of immigrants is simply an interfering busybody ready to use a gun or club to impose his will."

George Reisman, "Immigration Plus Welfare State Equal Police State"

Edited by Trebor
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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