Immigration Law in Arizona

[Maximus]

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.

Our government only has authority as a protector of individual rights over it's own territory. The citizens of this nation are entitled to individual rights. In principle, all men are entitled to the same, but in practice, only the citizens of a given country are accorded the recognition of those rights under their particular system of governance. Illegal immigrants are just that, illegal. They violated the law in crossing into our sovereign territory. By definition, that makes them a criminal and subject to deportation.

That being said, we should, by reform of our current laws, encourage the immigration of talented and skilled people. How would this be determined? By a check of their background history, their educational level, their particular job skill, and their willingness to assimilate into the prevailing culture.

[aequalsa]

... the most obnoxious features of the former South African regime--namely, ...

I think you should reconsider using a country where a third of the population has fled because of severe rights violations, extremely high murder and crime rates and selectively imposed rule of law, as your example of how nice a country can become when they are more "open."

[Dante]

Our government only has authority as a protector of individual rights over it's own territory. The citizens of this nation are entitled to individual rights. In principle, all men are entitled to the same, but in practice, only the citizens of a given country are accorded the recognition of those rights under their particular system of governance. Illegal immigrants are just that, illegal. They violated the law in crossing into our sovereign territory. By definition, that makes them a criminal and subject to deportation.

That being said, we should, by reform of our current laws, encourage the immigration of talented and skilled people. How would this be determined? By a check of their background history, their educational level, their particular job skill, and their willingness to assimilate into the prevailing culture.

This line of reasoning just occurred to me, so I'll try it out. Here's what I think.

It seems to me there's a difference between being charged with providing positive protection of rights and being charged with respecting the rights of others. The United States government, as the protector of its citizen's rights, is obligated to provide for the protection of those rights, through police, etc. It is not obligated to protect the rights of those who are not citizens. However, the government is composed of men, and all men are obligated to respect the rights of all other men, whether or not those rights are protected by the same entity. Thus, the difference between citizenship and non-citizenship is that only citizens are entitled to active protection by the government, but both groups are entitled to have others refrain from rights violations.

Thus, the only way in which a government is justified in treating citizens and non-citizens differently is determining whether they are entitled to police resources to help protect their rights. They are not justified in actively violating the rights of either group. To respond in the language of your post, both types of people are entitled to the "recognition" of their rights, but only citizens are entitled to the resources of the state in actively enforcing them.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Dante

[SapereAude]

I think you should reconsider using a country where a third of the population has fled because of severe rights violations, extremely high murder and crime rates and selectively imposed rule of law, as your example of how nice a country can become when they are more "open."

aequalsa-you beat me to it.

When I was living and working abroad I encountered many of the South Africans who were fleeing in the great "brain drain".

If you want to further your point about wide open borders you may want to find a country that practices it where it hasn't led to an increase in murder, mayhem and poverty.

If you can, because I for one would be interested to visit such a place.

[2046]

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.

We responded to the "right to control its borders" argument already. You are saying a nation is a sovereign entity that gets to rule over its people and decide who they deal with. We are not saying that there is no such thing as a border, or a government, or a society, or a nation. We are saying that a nation is not an entity (but a collection of individuals) a government (or the "nation") has no right to control who deals with who freely. We are saying that only individual property owners have the right to include or exclude people freely, and the task of a protection agency (the government) is to regocnize and protect that right by not forcibly including (welfarism) and not forcibly excluding (restricted trade, restricted immigration) those who freely deal with each other.

[aequalsa]

aequalsa-you beat me to it.

When I was living and working abroad I encountered many of the South Africans who were fleeing in the great "brain drain".

If you want to further your point about wide open borders you may want to find a country that practices it where it hasn't led to an increase in murder, mayhem and poverty.

If you can, because I for one would be interested to visit such a place.

That brought to mind an interesting facet of objectivist argumentation that I have noticed, which is a seeming double standard with regard to the rule of law. On different occasions I've seen people say or suggest that they would commit tax fraud or disobey laws which limit their rights, to which they are chastised to follow the law and attempt to change it in official circles since America is not yet a totalitarian regime. Generally, I would agree, but I would apply that principle across the board to illegal immigration as well whereas many seem to take great delight in the mass disregard for the law by immigrants and encourage them to do so. The reason that the sanctity of the rule of law is so important is that when you reach a critical mass of people who do not regard it as meaningful, then it ends up being catastrophically bad for the people there with destruction and redistribution of wealth, levels of crime that make anarchy look safe, and thousands of women getting "jackrolled" every year.(look it up if you wish to be horrified beyond compare.)

This break down is already becoming apparent in arizona with the regard to the kidnappings- phoenix has the second highest rate of kidnappings in the world...

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates...hoenix-arizona/

and will likely only get worse, which is why the beleaguered people living there feel so compelled to go to more extreme measures to maintain civil peace. Advocating for more lenient immigration laws is proper, but only when accompanied by strong enforcement of laws in there present state to preserve the public peace. It also becomes more and more necessary as the character of the citizens becomes less and less interested in legitimate, non-criminal methods of creating wealth.

[SapereAude]

We responded to the "right to control its borders" argument already. You are saying a nation is a sovereign entity that gets to rule over its people and decide who they deal with. We are not saying that there is no such thing as a border, or a government, or a society, or a nation. We are saying that a nation is not an entity (but a collection of individuals) a government (or the "nation") has no right to control who deals with who freely. We are saying that only individual property owners have the right to include or exclude people freely, and the task of a protection agency (the government) is to regocnize and protect that right by not forcibly including (welfarism) and not forcibly excluding (restricted trade, restricted immigration) those who freely deal with each other.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

On the one hand you claim you are not advocating "no borders".

But a border, left unenforced, is de facto "no borders".

You can't have it both ways.

For a nation to exist it must have borders, it must be defined.

For the border to exist it must be enforced, and by someone granted authority by someone.

Now, you can say that these above statement are incorrect and/or immoral.

But I don't see how you can do that without saying that there are no such things as borders and nations.

[Trebor]

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.

"Thomas Hussain Hobbes Obama, National Socialist conservative Republican thug, at your service."

There's more truth in that than you are ready to realize.

"A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense)." "Collectivized Rights"

A country doesn't belong to its citizens in the same way that one's property belongs to oneself. The US is my (and yours, and every other citizen's) country in the sense that I live here and I am a citizen, but not in the sense that I own the territory of the US. Nor do all, or even the majority, of the citizens own the territory in the sense of it being their property. To hold such a view would mean that there is no such thing as private property, that what we call "private property" is merely a portion of "our" property that certain individuals are permitted title to, not by right, but by permission of everyone else. That's collectivism.

[2046]

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

On the one hand you claim you are not advocating "no borders".

But a border, left unenforced, is de facto "no borders".

You can't have it both ways.

For a nation to exist it must have borders, it must be defined.

For the border to exist it must be enforced, and by someone granted authority by someone.

Now, you can say that these above statement are incorrect and/or immoral.

But I don't see how you can do that without saying that there are no such things as borders and nations.

We are not trying to have anything both ways, we are only trying to have something one way: individual rights.

We've already dealt with this "for the border to exist..." "for a nation to exist..." argument here and here, you seem incapable of answering to it.

[kainscalia]

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.

So collective brains do exist and have rights over the individual? Please enlighten us, this is an area of Objectivism I had not encountered before.

Fascinating, Captain.

[SapereAude]

So then.. government buildings... they aren't owned by an individual, and the govt can't own according to you.

So own could legally break in and do whatever one wants. One could steal from it since it has no owners, vandalize it own demolish it... or lay claim to private claim since it has no owner by the reasoning you just set forth.

Do you have a completing statement to make it not so?

Because this seems absurd and I know you couldn't possibly mean it that way.

[kainscalia]

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.

If your lever of intelligence were what you claim it is, you wouldn't be so easily distracted from the core of your argument, which at this moment shines in absentia.

[Trebor]

I think you should reconsider using a country where a third of the population has fled because of severe rights violations, extremely high murder and crime rates and selectively imposed rule of law, as your example of how nice a country can become when they are more "open."

I take it that you approve of transforming the US into such a "nice" country?

Reisman wasn't using South Africa as a model for what we should emulate, but as a model of which we should not emulate.

[Jake_Ellison]

In your opinion. You and others here seem to be denying that a nation even exists, dismissing it as a "collective,"

Straw man. Still no actual arguments.

The details of why I hold the position I hold are contained in Objectivist literature. Feel free to read about them there, if any of it is unclear to you. When I tried to help you do that, you replied with an ad hominem.

But I don't see how you can do that without saying that there are no such things as borders and nations.

A nation is a group of people, organized around a political system. It has no rights its individual members don't have. No person has the right to draw a 2000 mile line in the sand, and tell people South of it that they may not cross it.

If you rely on nationhood to claim that right, then you're the one missing the meaning of the concept, and using it as some kind of primary entity, not derived from the concept individual.

So let's dig deeper into what you mean. What would you say nation means, and where would this entity's right to the control of all people crossing onto the land between Mexico and Canada (says here 3536274 square miles, a lot of it in the property of individuals, but most of it unowned), come from?

Edited April 27, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[2046]

So then.. government buildings... they aren't owned by an individual, and the govt can't own according to you.

According to me? When did I say the government can't own something?

Edited April 27, 2010 by 2046

[Maximus]

If your lever of intelligence were what you claim it is,

[aequalsa]

I take it that you approve of transforming the US into such a "nice" country?

Reisman wasn't using South Africa as a model for what we should emulate, but as a model of which we should not emulate.

I'm not certain what you mean by "nice," but I am certainly in favor of having a country where women are not kidnapped and gang raped for several days, by the thousands.

I wasn't referencing Reisman, but rather your post above where you seemed to be using South Africa as a model to replicate.

[2046]

You all need to work on your reading comprehension.

[Trebor]

Advocating for more lenient immigration laws is proper, but only when accompanied by strong enforcement of laws in there present state to preserve the public peace. It also becomes more and more necessary as the character of the citizens becomes less and less interested in legitimate, non-criminal methods of creating wealth.

So, let's continue to violate the individual rights of some in the name of protecting individual rights of others?

I agree with Harry Binswanger: "I admire those who broke our rotten, rights-defying anti-immigration laws to come here. These brave people knew it was better to live in America under a stigma, in the semi-shadows, than as "legals" in their native countries." 'The Solution to "Illegal Immigration"'

Edited April 27, 2010 by Trebor

[Maximus]

Straw man. Still no actual arguments.

The details of why I hold the position I hold are contained in Objectivist literature. Feel free to read about them there, if any of it is unclear to you. When I tried to help you do that, you replied with an ad hominem.

The details of the position I hold are in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the writings of the founders and of the Enlightenment philosophers who gave us the concept of individual rights and the sovereignty of a republic deriving it's authority from the consent of the governed. Ms. Rand did not fundamentally disagree with any of that, except on minor points.

[Maximus]

So, let's continue to violate the individual rights of some in the name of protecting individual rights of others?

I agree with Harry Binswanger: "I admire those who broke our rotten, rights-defying anti-immigration laws to come here. These brave people knew it was better to live in America under a stigma, in the semi-shadows, than as "legals" in their native countries." 'The Solution to "Illegal Immigration"'

OMFG

[aequalsa]

So, let's continue to violate the individual rights of some in the name of protecting individual rights of others?

I agree with Harry Binswanger: "I admire those who broke our rotten, rights-defying anti-immigration laws to come here. These brave people knew it was better to live in America under a stigma, in the semi-shadows, than as "legals" in their native countries." 'The Solution to "Illegal Immigration"'

Then you agree that everyone who violates any questionable or immoral law is acting heroically?

[Jake_Ellison]

Then you agree that everyone who violates any questionable or immoral law is acting heroically?

I can't imagine he does. People who do cocaine to spite the popo aren't acting heroically.

Immigrants who take risks to come here and work on the black market, in particular, are acting heroically, because they are doing what is best for them and their families, despite evil people who are hellbent on stopping them. And, they are doing it without violating anyone's right to life, liberty and property.

Americans who have the moral clarity to recognize anti immigrant laws as immoral, and who break the law to hire illegals, are also acting heroically.

The definition of a hero is someone who takes extraordinary steps to maintain his moral status, when the world around him goes mad and preaches and attempts to enforce evil. John Galt was a hero, because he dared to value those society scorned, and because he withdrew himself and other producers from an economy which had some very clear laws against such actions.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[Trebor]

Then you agree that everyone who violates any questionable or immoral law is acting heroically?

As I said, I agree with Harry Binswanger's statement.

Those "illegal immigrants" who have broken 'our rotten, rights-defying anti-immigration laws to come here.' have more respect for individual rights and freedom, and more courage, than do many who live in this country, as evidenced by some of the comments in this thread and what's going on in this country today.

"Illegal immigrants," simply by virtue of coming into this country illegally, have not violated anyone's rights. Their rights, and the rights of those who would welcome them here, are the one's whose rights have been violated due to their coming here illegally.

Edit: Sure, they break the law, defiantly so. But they don't pretend otherwise. They take the chance and risk the consequence of running into those who, with your blessings, will arrest them, destroy whatever lives they've achieved here, and ship them back to where ever they came from. How evil can people get?

Edited April 27, 2010 by Trebor

[aequalsa]

I can't imagine he does. People who do cocaine to spite the popo aren't acting heroically.

Immigrants who take risks to come here and work on the black market, in particular, are acting heroically, because they are doing what is best for them and their families, despite evil people who are hellbent on stopping them. And, they are doing it without violating anyone's right to life, liberty and property. That's the definition of a hero.

How about people who evade taxes? Or go through red lights late at night when no other cars are present? Or people who sell high quality drugs to addicts? or to children? Are prostitutes heroic? People who sell food without permits and licensees? All heroes, or are the only important laws that should be violated the ones that affect immigrants?