Immigration Law in Arizona

[Trebor]

To bring us a bit more ontopic.... So first and foremost, I propose we try and define what/if there is a central problem here, specifically, in the concrete example of Arizona. I think by concentrating here, our application/determination of principles will be far more.....efficacious.

Moving along, I'd say I can identify a handful of distinct problems. First and foremost, there is the problem of procedures/standards for immigration being violated.

Secondly, there is the problem of the pervasive crime in Arizona atm (the crime that prompted the creation of this particular law in fact). At the moment, between kidnappings and cross border crime (coupled with corruption amongst mexican authorities, a situation that could lead someone to classify them as an "uncooperative" neighbor, as far as our sovereignty is concerned), this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

The Solution to "Illegal Immigration" by Harry Binswanger

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

"Immigration and Individual Rights" by Craig Biddle

"The problem of "illegal" immigration can be solved at the stroke of a pen: legalize immigration. Screen all you want (though I want damn little), but remove the quotas. Phase them out over a 5- or 10-year period. Grant immediate, unconditional amnesty to all "illegal" immigrants." Harry Binswanger, "The Solution to Illegal Immigration"

"Yes, there are statistics showing that some immigrants commit crime. There are also statistics showing that some native-born Americans commit crime. Statistics showing that some people commit crime, however, say nothing about what any particular person will do; and group statistics as such are wholly irrelevant to the question of whether an individual should be free to act on his judgment.

People, including immigrants and would-be immigrants, have free will; they choose to think or not to think, to act on reason or to act on feelings, to respect individual rights or to violate them. A person's choice to respect or violate individual rights is not dictated by his national origin or his race or his language, but by his philosophy, which can be either rational or irrational, depending on whether or not he chooses to think.8

If an immigrant chooses to be irrational and commits a crime, then, like anyone who commits a crime, he should suffer the consequences of his wrongdoing. But the presumption of innocence reigns here: An individual is logically and morally to be presumed innocent until proven guilty." Craig Biddle, "Immigration and Individual Rights"

[Trebor]

Yes and Yes.

I agree. I was hoping that those who do not would respond.

[2046]

I get you, Markoso, and I wish there were some academic response to give definite shape to the "I want damn little." Although the chapter 20 of Capitalism by George Reisman goes a long way, I would like to get Objectivists to focus on specifics.

What kind of fortifications are needed to protect from external aggression?

What kind of ports-of-entry are needed and where to put them?

What kind of screening and how to go about that?

Should we require a cirminal history, medical history, should we require a ticket of invitation of some king from a current resident to prove he is not trespassing, etc.

How do we verify the immigrant is not working with a foreign government or engaged in espionage?

What do we do with the immigrant that doesn't know how to behave and respect rights? Should we require a current resident to assume liability for any damage to property caused by the immigrant for a time?

Edited April 28, 2010 by 2046

[~Sophia~]

Can an individual in a "mostly rights respecting country" be in a position where his rights are mostly not respected, justifying that he would be moral to engage in civil disobedience?

A number of individuals?

Is it ever justified? Sure. Rand identified at least one such scenario but there are others.

Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own.

Please note her mentioning here the importance of one's respect for legality.

[Trebor]

I get you, Markoso, and I wish there were some academic response to give definite shape to the "I want damn little."

At some point the specialists take over in order to implement the proper principles. The job of philosophy is to identify and validate those principles.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Trebor

[Jake_Ellison]

Secondly, there is the problem of the pervasive crime in Arizona atm (the crime that prompted the creation of this particular law in fact).

Kidnappings prompted Arizona lawmakers to take away Police resources from investigating actual crimes, and send them after immigrants who have harmed no one?

No, I'm pretty sure what prompted this law is chauvinism, not a desire for justice.

[~Sophia~]

I agree with your observation, but I do not completely agree with the induction you appear to draw from it.

Nevertheless, let's suppose I do accept the principle. What is the implication for action? Does that mean that if I were an Irish father in the example I gave above, I should refuse to help or allow my minor daughter to go across to the U.K. for an abortion, even though there is no enforcement of the law prohibiting such travel?

Implication for actions for me is that my default is the respect for the law. That is what I want to project and advocate. That is what I want the societal standard to remain. That is what I teach my child.

I am not for acting like a martyr, either. But I do pay attention to the significance of what I am doing in the light of what I wrote above. That significance is a part of my cost/benefit analysis if you will.

[Dante]

I am not for acting like a martyr, either. But I do pay attention to the significance of what I am doing in the light of what I wrote above. That significance is a part of my cost/benefit analysis if you will.

I understand the desire to have the public respect the laws of a nation, so long as those laws are mostly correct. However, the individual effect of my actions on overall public opinion is surely insignificant, and by far the overriding factor is whether or not the law is unjustly interfering with my life. My actions have all but zero effect on the law, or public respect for the law, but the law has an immense impact on how easily I am able to live my life.

[Erik Christensen]

Would those in favor of open borders feel the same way if the nation was Iran instead of Mexico? As I see it the problem is a) the nanny state in the USA and the USA's current (and former) spinelessness when it comes to dealing with our enemies. I figure that once you abolish the nanny state and have a pro-active and victory minded military against our enemies than this issue would largely be resolved. I have to agree with Maximus.-it serves no purpose to put the cart before the horse.

[aequalsa]

There is a clear distinction between laws aimed at protecting rights and other laws. I am not writing my own laws, nor am I challenging the government,

...

Whenever our interests conflict, screw the country.

I agree about the distinction, but you are incorrect in thinking that the very act of breaking a law is different in any essential way from "writing your own laws." If obeying the law means 'obey only those you believe are justified,' then what you lose is a nation of laws and gain is a nation of men. Many men all writing their own laws...Anarchy, in a word.

Some stop signs are more important than others but if everyone gets to decide which are worth stopping at they would be fairly ineffectual at stopping accidents. The same is true with this optional legal system which you are advocating. I fully realize that you could get away with breaking any number of laws...people do every day, but in principle they have rejected society(the rest of the law abiding people) as such, and become its enemy.

[~Sophia~]

I understand the desire to have the public respect the laws of a nation, so long as those laws are mostly correct.

What you deem as correct is probably very different from what the socialist or satanist next door considers as correct. They may never agree with you given their different moral code. Do you want them to take the same approach in relation to the many laws they don't like?

However, the individual effect of my actions on overall public opinion is surely insignificant,

Do you mean in relation to the societal respect for the law? If so.. it depends on the situation. If you doing light drugs in your basement and keeping it to yourself then you are right.

Edited April 28, 2010 by ~Sophia~

[kainscalia]

What you deem as correct is probably very different from what the socialist or satanist next door considers as correct. They may never agree with you given their different moral code. Do you want them to take the same approach in relation to the many laws they don't like?

I don't know. Are the satanist or socialist next door right? Concerning which laws? You're not going to play the "everybody may be right" game, I hope.

Edited April 28, 2010 by kainscalia

[JASKN]

Could you elaborate on the part I put in bold, in the context of the rest of what you say? I don't follow how it would be "morally correct to break" some laws given the rest of your argument. Are you referring to laws that are immoral and that one ought to break except that one ought not to break it when one considers the rule-of-law argument?

I mean that they may be broken even within the context of the "rule-of-law" argument, depending on one's own cost/benefit analysis of the particular breaking situation. Some laws are clearly unjust, such as various fees and fines related to vehicle operation and road licensing, and the abortion example you gave. They should be changed, people should not be made to follow them. Being sure of that, it would be moral to break those laws, since they will (hopefully) be changed in the near future. However, before the change, if one is caught in the act and the enforcing agent (police officer, judge), decides to use the maximum power alloted to him under that particular law, one needs to accept that, as part of the rule-of-law argument/principle.

You said that the principle is flawed because the effect of breaking the law is different depending on which law. What principle, then, should be used? Whether the law is just/moral or not? Should one then demand that the government change the law immediately when one is caught? I think there must be some procedure to follow, otherwise chaos ensues. All citizens should then be held to that procedure.

Also, though my experience is surely less than your own, I currently agree with Sophia that the attitude toward rule-of-law deteriorates proportionally to those who break it and do not suffer its consequences if caught. It has seemed to me that the next crop of "breakers" will just go for more once they notice. What examples have you noticed that go against this? I would guess that a philosophically sound society would not have the problem of "going for more," but then, the original unjust-law problem would not exist, either.

Edited April 28, 2010 by JASKN

[2046]

Would those in favor of open borders feel the same way if the nation was Iran instead of Mexico? As I see it the problem is a) the nanny state in the USA and the USA's current (and former) spinelessness when it comes to dealing with our enemies. I figure that once you abolish the nanny state and have a pro-active and victory minded military against our enemies than this issue would largely be resolved. I have to agree with Maximus.-it serves no purpose to put the cart before the horse.

Why do you ask? Is that because the brown-skinned foreigners in Mexico are generally conservative Catholics and the brown-skinned foreigners from Iran are evil ragheads? We would apply the principles involved to Iran just like we would apply to any other country, including the proper foreign policy toward a nation we are resisting aggression from. A free immigration policy is the only thing concurrent with the proper, rational foreign policy. Why in the world would you permit immigration from a nation you are at war with, except to allow assylum to be given to those who can find it?

All merchants shall have safe and secure exit from England and entry to England, with the right to tarry there and to move about as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and right customs, quite from all evil tolls, except (in time of war) such merchants as are of the land at war with us. And if such are found in our land at the beginning of the war, they shall be detained, without injury to their bodies or goods, until information be received by us, or by our chief justiciar, how the merchants of our land found in the land at war with us are treated; and if our men are safe there, the others shall be safe in our land.

The comment is thus meaningless, and goes back to the same "we'll start respecting the principle of individual rights when we live under individual rights" meme.

[~Sophia~]

Would those in favor of open borders

I am not for open borders. I am for legal immigration with rational objective rules, screening, and merit based component. After the agreement of the principle is established the discussion about particulars can happen.

Eliminating of the welfare state would resolve many of raised issues but even if that is not the case I am sure people could come up with some reasonable conditions. For example, I believe Canada has a rule that if you sponsor a family member, after entering Canada, that person will not be eligible for any public assistance for 10 years. For those first 10 years if they "fall on the bad luck" or simply can't work you have to help them financially instead. I remember reading this in the sponsor agreement.

[kainscalia]

I am for legal immigration with rational objective rules, screening, and merit based component.

Fair game, let's do the same thing for each state, then, since states must also defend their borders from other american citizens and immigrants who would be deemed undesirable. Surely they too have the same rights the nation as a whole has to keep undesirables away? Since it seems that now we have -more- criteria than simply the criminal component (and rather arbitrary ones... I guess that we can say goodbye to affordable unskilled labor and start paying double for our food, since an unskilled worker who'd end up in food-picking wouldn't end up passing Sofia's 'merit-based' screening), well, let's put all of them in operation...

Wait, why stop at states? Let's also apply it to cities.

Why stop at cities? let's go for districts!

Neighborhoods...

You know, something doesn't quite sit right with your idea when we take it to its full logical conclusions.

Edited April 28, 2010 by kainscalia

[FeatherFall]

I have a question for those who advocate the "respect the law while we have freedom of speech" position: What form does my respect take? Just to make sure my question is clear, I'll give some examples of possible replies.

As a potential immigrant, do I spend my years and dollars jumping through the legal hoops instead of jumping the border?

As a citizen, do I refrain from all business transactions with illegal immigrants?

Do I report illegal immigrants I come accross to the authorities as I'd report a mugging or a rape?

Must I keep my mouth shut about laws that add teeth to arbitrary quotas? Must I support such laws with my speech?

Basically, I'm having trouble understanding how I can follow such a monstrous law while at the same time promoting the idea that laws exist to protect individual rights. I think I need some concrete examples of what such respect is. If speech is my way of opposing the bad law, I assume my last question would be answered with a big, "No!". I also assume that my first question, and probably my second, would get an affirmative response. But I'm confused as to where you seem to want me to draw the line.

[~Sophia~]

I don't know. Are the satanist or socialist next door right? Concerning which laws? You're not going to play the "everybody may be right" game, I hope.

I am not sure why would you get this impression given when I wrote.

I am saying precisely that it should not be advocated that it is (or can be) up to the individual to decide which laws they will obey and which they won't based on what they consider correct.

I did not think it needed to be stated on this board how it is properly decided what a correct law is.

[FeatherFall]

Would those in favor of open borders feel the same way if the nation was Iran instead of Mexico?

This question isn't appropriate. For one, the law currently at issue threatens consequences on all illegal immigrants, Iranians included. Secondly, it can be argued that we should be at war with Iran. Restrictive changes to immigration policy during wartime are legitimate.

[kainscalia]

I am saying precisely that it should not be advocated that it is (or can be) up to the individual to decide which laws they will obey and which they won't based on what they consider correct.

Right, then so it is not up to the individual to decide which laws are correct, the individual should follow the laws that other individuals who consider them correct have passed. Your argument is thoroughly consistent.

Interesting way to find out that Ayn Rand was wrong on the whole 'communism' thing because, after all, it is not up to the individual do decide which laws are correct- they just are. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go brush up on my International.

[Grames]

Wait, why stop at states? Let's also apply it to cities.

Why stop at cities? let's go for districts!

Neighborhoods...

You know, something doesn't quite sit right with your idea when we take it to its full logical conclusions.

I have already taken this principle to its full logical conclusion. I have a merit based screening test for people I invite to my place.

[kainscalia]

I have already taken this principle to its full logical conclusion. I have a merit based screening test for people I invite to my place.

Of course, and you own The United States how?

[~Sophia~]

Fair game, let's do the same thing for each state, then, since states must also defend their borders from other american citizens and immigrants who would be deemed undesirable.

I guess that we can say goodbye to affordable unskilled labor and start paying double for our food,

I am not sure how you have arrived at this. You seem to be jumping to conclusions.

Was it because I mentioned merit? That at least would be a good start. I do believe that some screening is necessary. I am open to arguments in regard to what criteria is best. I am not sure if you realize just how broken your current immigration system is. Almost anything seems like an improvement.

[~Sophia~]

Interesting way to find out that Ayn Rand was wrong on the whole 'communism' thing because, after all, it is not up to the individual do decide which laws are correct- they just are.

I have no idea what are you talking about. That is not what I said or meant. Your emotion is affecting your comprehension.

Your responses do not reflect my views (you have checked them very easily - I have written many posts on this board).

[kainscalia]

I am not sure if you realize just how broken your current immigration system is. Almost anything seems like an improvement.

Oh, I have a very good idea, Sophia. I am a legal Immigrant here, and for the past ten years I have been struggling to attain perpetuity. Believe you me, if anyone on this forum knows how fucked up the current immigration system is, it would be me.

Sorry, but by principle alone you don't have the right to ban anyone from immigrating into this country, if they are not criminals or terrorists.

Period.