Ending Islamic Immigration

[jfortun]

Of course it does! That's why we shouldn't be treating the safety of Americans as expendable to the higher cause of open immigration. It is precisely the individualist concern for the lives of Americans that gives rise to this idea.

The "higher cause" is not open immigration- it is recognizing each man as an individual being. Show that an immigrant is likely to violate the rights of an American citizen and deny him entry on that basis. But turning away immigrants on the basis of their original culture, to say nothing of their actual beliefs, is accepting collectivism because the ends justify the means.

No, but fortunately that's not what I'm suggesting. Not being allowed in is not equivalent to being declared an enemy. It is done out of uncertainty, and that's how anyone affected by it should take it.

What don't you know? Only information you are not willing to collect or investigate. It's not being done out of uncertainty, it is being done out of presupposed "knowledge" that if someone belongs to particular culture or ethnic group, he poses a potential risk to American lives. Whatever uncertainty arises is only because because you choose not to evaulate the individual. Using this logic, uncertainty can be used to justify all kinds of policy; i.e. Global Warming: we are uncertain of global warming and the effect of man on the phenomena so to protect our citizens from the possible effects, we should sign the Kyoto treaty, after all, better safe than sorry.

Principles that sacrifice lives aren't principles at all.

The principle that each man must be judged as an individual is not a principle and is not an idea worth pursuing?

What other ethics are worth sacrificing in the name of security?

[GoodOrigamiMan]

By what right is the Mexican *not* a citizen?

The United States should protect the rights of anyone within its borders, citizens and non-citizens alike. As for your tasteless example, the hard working Mexican should be protected then granted citizenship and the worthless native should be put in jail. As for what defines citizenship and how it is gained, perhaps that is another topic for another thread. I will say that the United States should protect the rights of its “citizens” that are abroad, but should not go out of its way (out of the country) to protect the rights of non-citizens.

[GoodOrigamiMan]

The "higher cause" is not open immigration- it is recognizing each man as an individual being.  Show that an immigrant is likely to violate the rights of an American citizen and deny him entry on that basis.  But turning away immigrants on the basis of their original culture, to say nothing of their actual beliefs, is accepting collectivism because the ends justify the means.

So in a war we have to interview everyone on the other side because they are all “individual beings” and we don’t know their actual beliefs? I see it as Idealism that will only handicap us. We are not accepting collectivism here; we are recognizing it there. We are judging an affiliated group of people together and treating them accordingly, anyone in that group who doesn’t wish to be affiliated can take an initiative (but it is defiantly not our responsibility to go looking thru a trashcan to rescue the things of value). original culture vs. actual beliefs… taking away the superfluous we are left with: culture vs. beliefs… are you denying a connection?

[jfortun]

So in a war we have to interview everyone on the other side because they are all “individual beings” and we don’t know their actual beliefs?  I see it as Idealism that will only handicap us.  We are not accepting collectivism here; we are recognizing it there.  We are judging an affiliated group of people together and treating them accordingly, anyone in that group who doesn’t wish to be affiliated can take an initiative (but it is defiantly not our responsibility to go looking thru a trashcan to rescue the things of value).  original culture vs. actual beliefs… taking away the superfluous we are left with: culture vs. beliefs… are you denying a connection?

Not denying a connection between culture and belief, but recognizing that those seeking to immigrate to the US may not strictly adhere to the beliefs of the culture from which they are fleeing.

[Oakes]

No, you haven't answered it. What makes a citizen a citizen? not legally but objectively. This is what you have to show.

I don't understand. A citizen "objectively" is a citizen "legally". You can't separate the legality from the definition.

There's a mexican being beat up in the parking lot. He works hard. He's being robbed by a native who has never worked in his life. You have argued the the passing squad car should simply move on. (A famous objectivist once said that he'd prefer to dine with a concrete-oritented truck driver , rather than with an abtractly, floating modern intellectual ... I paraphrase from weak memory).

First of all, after deeper thought I think it the police should intervene even if they know he's illegal, because crime of any sort is a danger and a negative that should be eliminated. Second of all, the reason the Mexican is not a citizen is because he violated our immigration laws, which were specifically made to protect the individual rights of Americans.

The "higher cause" is not open immigration- it is recognizing each man as an individual being. Show that an immigrant is likely to violate the rights of an American citizen and deny him entry on that basis. But turning away immigrants on the basis of their original culture, to say nothing of their actual beliefs, is accepting collectivism because the ends justify the means.

Not true, the means are completely justified, legally, for the reasons I've already given. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens.

What don't you know? Only information you are not willing to collect or investigate. It's not being done out of uncertainty, it is being done out of presupposed "knowledge" that if someone belongs to particular culture or ethnic group, he poses a potential risk to American lives. Whatever uncertainty arises is only because because you choose not to evaulate the individual. Using this logic, uncertainty can be used to justify all kinds of policy; i.e. Global Warming: we are uncertain of global warming and the effect of man on the phenomena so to protect our citizens from the possible effects, we should sign the Kyoto treaty, after all, better safe than sorry.

I'm "not willing to collect or investigate"? I "choose not to evaulate the individual"? It is impossible to collect this information. It is impossible to know what someone else is thinking. That's what I've been saying all along. It is logistically impossible to separate the moderates from the die-hards, or the pro-Americans from the fakers. Global Warming can actually be investigated, which is what makes it different.

[jfortun]

I'm "not willing to collect or investigate"? I "choose not to evaulate the individual"? It is impossible to collect this information. It is impossible to know what someone else is thinking. That's what I've been saying all along. It is logistically impossible to separate the moderates from the die-hards, or the pro-Americans from the fakers. Global Warming can actually be investigated, which is what makes it different.

If making such a determination on an individual basis is impossible then why not deny entry to any member of any non-American culture? At what arbitrary point are you willing to deny immigration into the US? Should people from largely socialist cultures be forbidden entry? After all, in the long term they are probably more harmful than terrorist sympathizers. What about denying entry to those with certain religious backgrounds? Again, religion is harmful to the US as well.

[jfortun]

violated our immigration laws, which were specifically made to protect the individual rights of Americans.

In what ways do immigration laws protect the rights of Americans?

[AisA]

I completely agree with Mr. Trifkovic's primary premise:

Islam as such not some allegedly aberrant form of it—is the main identifiable threat to our global security in the coming century, and (we must) understand that the attacks of September 11 reflect Islam's inherent link with violence and intolerance.

The on-going, horrific acts of terrorism these last twenty years, including the horrors in Spain, Beslan and Bali, all examples of wanton, unapologetic slaughter that included women, children and infants, proves one thing: At the moment every Muslim is a potential enemy combatant, sympathizer or WMD delivery system. On this basis alone they should be excluded from entering the country.

Is this a violation of the rights of “innocent” Muslims? Yes, and the violators are the murderous Islamic bastards that have made it necessary to exclude all Muslims from entering the U.S.

Muslims denied immigration, in effect, are civilian “casualties” of the war started by their brothers-in-faith. In war, civilian casualties are the moral responsibility of the aggressor – not the side using force in self-defense.

Islam is not a religion of peace. Those who voluntarily embrace it have declared their allegiance to a morality of death. Scholars point to explicit passages in the Koran calling for the death of infidels who refuse to convert, which effectively refutes those apologists that deny Islam preaches murder. Muslims – at least the ones I’ve heard – refuse to unequivocally condemn terrorism.

What about the Muslims that are already here? They should be monitored and investigated on a case-by-case basis, and deported as necessary. Yes, this will be a violation of rights for some of them, but it is their fellow Muslims causing the violation, not the U.S. government.

Does this mean it would be appropriate to deny entry to socialists, other religions, or anyone else that one might perceive to be a threat? Not unless there is a reasonable basis for suspecting them of a personal willingness to initiate the use of force. Granted, this may be a difficult thing to determine. We may wind up admitting some non-Muslim wannabe terrorists. But the fact that we are not omniscient and cannot implement a perfect immigration screen is not a reason to continue letting potential enemy troops pour into our country. The inability to mount a perfect defense is not a reason to mount no defense at all.

[Zeus]

I don't understand. A citizen "objectively" is a citizen "legally". You can't separate the legality from the definition.

In the hierarchy of knowledge - and such a hierarchy exists, mind you - political principles precede legal principles, just as political principles precede economic principles.

The purpose of the science of law is normative: the codification of objectively-determined rules of social conduct, which are to be supported by the use of force, a use delegated to government.

But those rules require a moral foundation, which in turn requires an epistemological foundation grounded in reality. One cannot hold legal principles as primaries: they presuppose a huge context, as I have already indicated.

Any proper law requires a moral basis. If you steal, you go to jail; if you kill, you face the death penalty; if you defraud someone, you face due punishment, etc.

So, what you must do is validate the legal concept of citizenship by showing its moral roots.

Now, I'm not saying there isn't a way to do this, and American political history provides instances of this validation. I just want to see how you would go about it. In doing so, you'll find your attitude to immigration duly tempered.

[Oakes]

If making such a determination on an individual basis is impossible then why not deny entry to any member of any non-American culture? At what arbitrary point are you willing to deny immigration into the US? Should people from largely socialist cultures be forbidden entry? After all, in the long term they are probably more harmful than terrorist sympathizers. What about denying entry to those with certain religious backgrounds? Again, religion is harmful to the US as well.

What's so arbitrary about denying immigration to those you are at war with?

In what ways do immigration laws protect the rights of Americans?

With regards to banning Muslims, it would protect the American citizens' most basic right of all -- the right to life -- by combating terrorism. With regards to immigration laws in general, they prevent criminals from coming in and violating any number of rights.

Muslims denied immigration, in effect, are civilian “casualties” of the war started by their brothers-in-faith. In war, civilian casualties are the moral responsibility of the aggressor – not the side using force in self-defense.

This is a good insight, and is particularly relevent in answering the following:

So, what you must do is validate the legal concept of citizenship by showing its moral roots.

Governments are created to protect individual rights, and those rights are based on a moral code. People are automatically citizens if they are born under that legal code; all others come from a different society and weren't subject to the same code, thus the distinction between citizens and non-citizens, and the need for naturalization procedures.

Now we get to AisA's point. Since non-citizens aren't subject to our code, our government interacts with them much like an individual person would: By leaving them alone except in retaliation. It can unleash any retaliatory force on them, both in its immigration policy and in its war policy. It cannot do the same to its own citizens, because they are the ones it is protecting; it is responsible for them.

[Zeus]

Governments are created to protect individual rights, and those rights are based on a moral code. People are automatically citizens if they are born under that legal code; all others come from a different society and weren't subject to the same code, thus the distinction between citizens and non-citizens, and the need for naturalization procedures.

Rights are based on a moral code? How is this so? What necessitates this moral code and how does it lead to rights?

Then you say that "People are automatically citizens if they are born under that legal code". What legal code? This, in fact, is the question you are trying to answer: immigration law, including citizenship status, is part of the "legal code." You must show why such a legal code covers the issue of citizenship and how.

Now we get to AisA's point. Since non-citizens aren't subject to our code, our government interacts with them much like an individual person would: By leaving them alone except in retaliation. It can unleash any retaliatory force on them, both in its immigration policy and in its war policy. It cannot do the same to its own citizens, because they are the ones it is protecting; it is responsible for them.

In answering this point, I will take the "code" (which remains unvalidated) for granted.

In war, an aggrieved or endangered nation (assuming it is morally superior) has the right to strike a potential or actual enemy. This means striking the governors and instruments of state primarily and may include "innocent" citizens of the offending state -- commonly referred to as 'collateral damage.'

But immigrants are those who have explicitly, ostensively, renounced their citizenship of the offending state. They have said, in effect: "We want no part of this unholy nationality. We are Americans!"

Viewed in this light, is it not a more fruitful policy to let them into the country? As a matter of fact, this was American foreign policy during the Cold War. You will recall the many "defectors" from Soviet states. These defectors proved very useful in fighting the enemy. They earned their citizenship. As I mentioned in an earlier post, immigration does not occur without context.

Now, regarding the native-born in the free state, let us take the example of John Walker Lindh. Is this person to be protected by the state in wartime regardless of context? Just because he was "born under [the] legal code"?

[tommyedison]

First of all, after deeper thought I think it the police should intervene even if they know he's illegal, because crime of any sort is a danger and a negative that should be eliminated. Second of all, the reason the Mexican is not a citizen is because he violated our immigration laws, which were specifically made to protect the individual rights of Americans.

Do you mean to say that just ANYBODY who wants to live in the US forever, loves it and is immigrating should be granted citizenship immediately?

If Muslims can be denied admission on the basis of security, then there thousands of other non-Muslims holding wrong ideas who should be denied admission like the Socialists, Fascists, Environmentalists, etc. simply because their activities will infringe individual rights in the long run. And Muslims born in US should also be thrown out.

Security and Defense cannot justify everything.

Bush gives Defense as an excuse to support the Patriot Act. But do you actually believe that the Patriot Act is right?

[AisA]

If Muslims can be denied admission on the basis of security, then there thousands of other non-Muslims holding wrong ideas who should be denied admission like the Socialists, Fascists, Environmentalists, etc. simply because their activities will infringe individual rights in the long run. And Muslims born in US should also be thrown out.

Socialists, Fascists and (for the most part) Environmentalists do not have a track record of achieving their goals by personally initiating the use of force. Their method is to use persuasion and the vote to get the government to initiate the use of force. That is a discernable difference. It means that they are a long term threat that can be countered by persuasion and the vote.

Muslims, however, are a threat to personally initiate force NOW or at any moment in the future. There is no defense against that except to keep them out of the country.

The FBI should investigate Muslims that are already here, and deport any that have supported -- vocally, logistically or financially -- any terrorists or terrorist organizations like al Quaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. There is no such thing as the right to support those who recognize no rights.

[tommyedison]

The FBI should investigate Muslims that are already here, and deport any that have supported -- vocally, logistically or financially -- any terrorists or terrorist organizations like al Quaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.  There is no such thing as the right to support those who recognize no rights.

If the FBI can do that much then it can surely perform a detailed investigation of the Muslims entering America.

[AisA]

If the FBI can do that much then it can surely perform a detailed investigation of the Muslims entering America.

The FBI has access to the activities of Muslims already in this country. They have little or no way to find out what a given Muslim is doing overseas.

[Capitalism Forever]

I would like to remind you guys of a fact that seems to have escaped your attentions: Being a Muslim is a CHOICE. We are not talking about race, ethnicity, or place of birth here. We are talking about a person's chosen religion.

If a person wants to immigrate, all he has to do is give up his religion. Since Islam is a religion that calls for the initiation of deadly force against non-believers, it should not be difficult for the prospective immigrant to understand that his religion is totally incompatible with American law.

Sure, America should always have its doors open for freedom-loving immigrants--but no person can honestly claim to be a serious Muslim and a freedom-loving individual at the same time.

[Oakes]

Rights are based on a moral code? How is this so? What necessitates this moral code and how does it lead to rights?

This forum is for Objectivists who meet with those fundamentals already established, allowing for the dialogue to exist on a higher level. I'd recommend you read OPAR if you don't yet understand it, or perhaps make a new thread in the "Basic Questions" subsection. As long as you are in this thread, you are assumed to know it.

Then you say that "People are automatically citizens if they are born under that legal code". What legal code? This, in fact, is the question you are trying to answer: immigration law, including citizenship status, is part of the "legal code." You must show why such a legal code covers the issue of citizenship and how.

There is no "issue" of citizenship. No vagueness, no controversy. It is the plain and simple fact arising when a government projects its influence over a fraction of the human population, rather than all of it.

But immigrants are those who have explicitly, ostensively, renounced their citizenship of the offending state. They have said, in effect: "We want no part of this unholy nationality. We are Americans!"

How can you assume this? Isn't it possible for terrorists to leave the country they love to perform their dirty work here in America? Isn't it possible for Muslims with terrorist sympathies to come and live in America without believing in its ideals?

Viewed in this light, is it not a more fruitful policy to let them into the country? As a matter of fact, this was American foreign policy during the Cold War. You will recall the many "defectors" from Soviet states. These defectors proved very useful in fighting the enemy. They earned their citizenship.

I don't see why we can't accept defecting terrorists. They'll just have to identify themselves as such when they come here.

Now, regarding the native-born in the free state, let us take the example of John Walker Lindh. Is this person to be protected by the state in wartime regardless of context? Just because he was "born under [the] legal code"?

Being born under the legal code doesn't give you immunity if in fact you break the law and sympathize with the enemy.

[Oakes]

Do you mean to say that just ANYBODY who wants to live in the US forever, loves it and is immigrating should be granted citizenship immediately?

I have no idea how you could ever think that, given what I've been saying in this thread.

Security and Defense cannot justify everything.

Bush gives Defense as an excuse to support the Patriot Act. But do you actually believe that the Patriot Act is right?

This is why the difference between citizens and non-citizens is so important: There is an inherent contradiction in the idea of taking liberties away from Americans so that you may protect their liberties. There is NO such contradiction when dealing with non-Americans, which is why your argument is erroneous.

BTW I don't know what is in the Patriot Act, and I'm not inclined to blindly accept what the loony left is saying about it (given their track record on protecting liberties), so I'm just not going to say anything about it.

[McGroarty]

Muslim practitioners are pretty well varied. While the Qoran calls for the death or financial enslavement of all unbelievers, and some interpretations even include all non-Arabs as well, many overlook these requirements.

Recognizing passages such as the above as a call to action is the specific problem. It makes sense to me that you would ban immigration based on being a Muslim and being unwilling to swear an oath to Allah that you do not share those specific beliefs, not on being Muslim alone.

Of course, this raises a fun new issue of making more specific requirements of select groups.