Immigration Law in Arizona

[Jake_Ellison]

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.

I thought I was sounding more like Ayn Rand. This time, I'll repeat the same thing, but I will make sure I sound exactly like her:

The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.

Again, if you in any way legislate, enforce, or advocate the initiation of force, no matter what name you call yourself or your actions by, you are a thug.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[Trebor]

"The reason we must seek to abolish restrictions on Mexican immigration at the earliest possible moment is because the attempt to restrict it is in danger of making us adopt some of the most obnoxious features of the former South African regime--namely, a virtual pass law, in which people of Latin origin will have to carry identity papers to show on demand to immigration police, who, if they do not find the appropriate "papers," will have the authority to destroy the lives of said individuals by uprooting them from their jobs and homes and deporting them. Already virtually Gestapo-like conditions exist in Southern California in connection with a notorious immigration checkpoint, where fleeing Mexicans of all ages and both sexes have often run into oncoming automobile traffic rather than be arrested by officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This ignominy, I must note, has now been compounded by the recent passage of Proposition 187 in the state of California, which, if upheld in the courts, will actually impose the requirement of having an official identity card that must be shown on demand to the authorities." George Reisman, Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, Chapter 20, "Freedom of Immigration"

[Maximus]

George Reisman's full of crap. In the 1950s, President Eisenhower initiated a program called "Operation Wetback." (obviously pre-PC) He deported myriad illegal aliens in the form of migrant workers who came and refused to leave after their guest worker visas expired. Guess what - we didn't turn into a police state.

Even Caesar Chavez was against illegal immigration, saying it damaged his fight to organize farm workesr by undermining the credibility of the movement. It also stigmatizes Hispanic legal resident aliens and naturalized citizens by casting suspicion on them in the eyes of the citizens they dwell amongst.

Having a system of law and an enforcement mechanism does not make one a thug. There are constitutional restraints involved on the use of force. Even a foreign national is provided equal protection under our system, and any abuse on the part of law enforcement officials would be dealt with harshly.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Maximus

[Maximus]

I thought I was sounding more like Ayn Rand.

You need to start sounding like Jake Ellison instead of like Ayn Rand.

[Trebor]

George Reisman's full of crap. In the 1950s, President Eisenhower initiated a program called "Operation Wetback." (obviously pre-PC) He deported myriad illegal aliens in the form of migrant workers who came and refused to leave after their guest worker visas expired. Guess what - we didn't turn into a police state.

Even Caesar Chavez was against illegal immigration, saying it damaged his fight to organize farm worker by undermining the credibility of the movement. It also stigmatizes Hispanic legal resident aliens and naturalized citizens by casing suspicion on them in the eyes of the citizens they dwell amongst.

"You turn on the news, you'll see the same folks are still shouting about how it's going to be the end of the world because this bill passed. .... Leaders of the Republican Party, they called the passage of this bill 'Armageddon.' Armageddon! End of freedom as we know it! So after I signed the bill I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling. Some cracks opening up in the Earth! Turned out it was a nice day!'' Barack Hussein Obama

[Maximus]

I'll have to add Barack's name to my growing sig list of prejoritives I have collected from this thread.

This just keeps getting better.

[Trebor]

Glad to help.

To enlighten yourself further, see: Anti-Conceptual Mentality

[softwareNerd]

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.

Are you consistent with your terms? I don't know, perhaps you are. For instance, do you agree that our current system of taxes and ObamaCare and all the various government regulations cannot be described as an initiation of force. Therefore, all those who enforce them are acting with perfect morality. Anyone who attempts to stray from the letter of any of those laws is being immoral. If that's what you're saying, then I understand your argument, even if I disagree with it.

[Trebor]

"The implicit premise of barring foreigners is: "This is our country, we let in who we want." But who is "we"? The government does not own the country. Jurisdiction is not ownership. Only the owner of land or any item of property can decide the terms of its use or sale. Nor does the majority own the country. "

And:

'American land is not the collective property of some entity called "the U.S. government." Nor is there such thing as collective, social ownership of the land. The claim, "We have the right to decide who is allowed in" means some individuals--those with the most votes--claim the right to prevent other citizens from exercising their rights. But there can be no right to violate the rights of others."'

Harry Binswanger, "Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration"

[Jake_Ellison]

You need to start sounding like Jake Ellison instead of like Ayn Rand.

No, you need to learn a few things about principled, intelligent thought from Ayn Rand.

[Maximus]

Glad to help.

To enlighten yourself further, see: Anti-Conceptual Mentality

So you are implying that I am willfully ignorant? Wow.

[Maximus]

"The implicit premise of barring foreigners is: "This is our country, we let in who we want." But who is "we"? The government does not own the country. Jurisdiction is not ownership. Only the owner of land or any item of property can decide the terms of its use or sale. Nor does the majority own the country. "

And:

'American land is not the collective property of some entity called "the U.S. government." Nor is there such thing as collective, social ownership of the land. The claim, "We have the right to decide who is allowed in" means some individuals--those with the most votes--claim the right to prevent other citizens from exercising their rights. But there can be no right to violate the rights of others."'

Harry Binswanger, "Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration"

Illegal aliens are not citizens.

Mr. Binswanger seems to be denying that such an entity as The United States of America exists, that we are just 300,000,000+ individuals that happen to occupy space on the same continent.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Maximus

[Trebor]

Having a system of law and an enforcement mechanism does not make one a thug.

It depends upon what principle(s) inform that system of law and its enforcement.

The fundamental purpose of a proper government is the protection of individual rights. Individual rights is the principle that informs a proper government.

[Trebor]

Illegal aliens are not citizens.

"One doesn't have to be a resident of any particular country to have a moral entitlement to be secure from governmental coercion against one's life, liberty, and property. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, government is instituted "to secure these rights"--to protect them against their violation by force or fraud.

A foreigner has rights just as much as an American. To be a foreigner is not to be a criminal. Yet our government treats as criminals those foreigners not lucky enough to win the green-card lottery."

Harry Binswanger, "Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration"

[FeatherFall]

Maximus, I'm interested to hear if you think SoftwareNerd (post 109) correctly applied the principle you're following.

[Trebor]

Perhaps we should all be grateful that young Elian Gonzales wasn't permitted to remain here in America. I wonder what the damages, in terms of welfare receipts, he would have "forced" upon us. Lucky us!

[Maximus]

No, you need to learn a few things about principled, intelligent thought from Ayn Rand.

And you are implying that I am neither principled or intelligent? Wow again.

[Maximus]

Maximus, I'm interested to hear if you think SoftwareNerd (post 109) correctly applied the principle you're following.

I'm still thinking that one over. SoftwareNerd, at least, does not see fit to call me names, unlike some on this thread, so his post deserves a proper response.

[Maximus]

Perhaps we should all be grateful that young Elian Gonzales wasn't permitted to remain here in America. I wonder what the damages, in terms of welfare receipts, he would have "forced" upon us. Lucky us!

Elian should have been allowed to stay. any one who escapes communist Cuba, in my view, can have asylum here. There is a difference between a democratic country and a communist dictatorship, a difference between someone who comes to escape an intolerable tyranny and someone who comes to glom on to the welfare state.

[Trebor]

Then your beef should be with our welfare state or system, not with illegal immigrants, and you should be for the repeal of laws that make "criminals" of those who have violated no rights, who do in fact have the right to come here, and not instead insist upon the enforcement of such laws.

Edit to change "immigration" to"immigrants"

Edited April 27, 2010 by Trebor

[Jake_Ellison]

And you are implying that I am neither principled or intelligent? Wow again.

You haven't shown any signs of principled thought or made any intelligent arguments.

[The Lonely Rationalist]

Elian should have been allowed to stay. any one who escapes communist Cuba, in my view, can have asylum here. There is a difference between a democratic country and a communist dictatorship, a difference between someone who comes to escape an intolerable tyranny and someone who comes to glom on to the welfare state.

Then what about someone who escapes an intolerable tyranny who wants to rely on the welfare state?

Or how about someone who wants to comes from a democratic country and wants to live productively?

And who decides which immigrants are productive and which ones aren't? You?

[Maximus]

Then your beef should be with our welfare state or system, not with illegal immigrants, and you should be for the repeal of laws that make "criminals" of those who have violated no rights, who do in fact have the right to come here, and not instead insist upon the enforcement of such laws.

Edit to change "immigration" to"immigrants"

My beef is with the welfare state, among other things. I was getting to that. You and Jake keep distracting me with statements questioning my level of intelligence, however.

[Trebor]

My beef is with the welfare state, among other things. I was getting to that. You and Jake keep distracting me with statements questioning my level of intelligence, however.

Like when we say things such as:

George Reisman's full of crap.

My question with respect to what you've stated here is with whether or not you are an advocate of individual rights, and if so, what should be our government's policy towards illegal immigrants.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Trebor

[Maximus]

You haven't shown any signs of principled thought or made any intelligent arguments.

In your opinion. You and others here seem to be denying that a nation even exists, dismissing it as a "collective," and denying that it has any right to control it's borders. It has been opined that we exist only as individuals, and it seems, deny that a country even belongs to the citizens of that country - that it is their property, their territory, and that they have any say in who is let in. To me this makes no sense whatsoever.