Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Immigration restrictions

Rate this topic


MisterSwig
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Huh. I always found good sense from Thomas Sowell. Immigrants in the abstract: http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell083116.php3

I've also enjoyed Sowell. But Objectivism is an individualist philosophy: we do not treat people as units of culture, or representatives of some group, but as individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to believe that Sowell wrote that. It's pretty bad.

Look at this line:

"Insipid statements about how "we are all descendants of immigrants" blithely ignore the fact that millions of Americans are descendants of legal immigrants who were not allowed into the country until they met medical and other criteria."

Descendents of legal immigrants? "Medical and other criteria" was a late addition to an otherwise complete absence of immigration restrictions. Until around the 1900s, all you had to do was walk off the boat. That was it. At least for European immigrants; if anyone was excluded, it was from explicitly racist motivations. I don't mind discussing if there should be some criteria, but it's stupid to say "descendents of legal immigrants". 

"However much educational standards or behavioral standards may suffer in schools when immigrant children from a poorer background flood in, that is not likely to affect the elite's children in pricey private schools."

This is the worst part. He is saying that being from a poorer background could potentially lead to worse educational or behavioral standards. It's the same argument you would use for separate but equal schools. "Black children on average come from poorer families, which might harm the educational standards of white children from richer families". 

It just goes to show that many viewpoints about immigration restrictions come from a place of extreme ignorance. If these things were true, he might have a point. But these things aren't true. The facts are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Such high-handedness is neither incidental nor accidental. It is part of a much wider pattern, extending beyond immigration, and extending beyond the United States to many European countries, where narrow elites imagine themselves so superior to the rest of us that it is both their right and their duty to impose their notions on us.

Many of these elites seem to see themselves as citizens of the world, and to regard national borders as unfortunate relics of the benighted past.

If people within those borders are so much better off than other people outside those borders, then to such elites it is only a matter of fairness or "social justice" to let the outsiders in, to get a share of our windfall gain". [Sowell 2016]

--------------

Above is the crux being overlooked. Immigrants and immigration, in the abstract, feels great and is objectively good - for the most part, for most of immigrants and the country. Thomas Sowell brings much-needed reality to the abstraction, I believe, an antidote to the intrinsicism and context-dropping. As what is going on in Great Britain right now: "We the people" have been showing they're growing tired of "elites" commanding them while ignoring them, and (for one example in common) leaving them to face numbers of undocumented migrants - real individuals, not abstracts - while wealthy and intellectual elitists of the Left, above it all and untouched, can derive satisfaction from their good deeds.

A wave of "Nationalism"* has been happening in response, we see in some nations. While "the people" generally do not have an Objectivist understanding, they do know opening borders to a deluge of all-comers, in these contemporary socio-political contexts, is sacrificial of individuals and of the nations. In counter to 'social justice", egalitarianism and altruism, the only defense appears to be falling back on sovereignty over our borders, i.e. nationalism. For that, many Britons and Americans - long, of the most mixed-race societies existing - are falsely labelled xenophobes and supremacists.  That, for most of the populaces who are usually sincerely welcoming to any new immigrants - those who've *chosen* to become citizens, is unjust. 

*In place of this compromised concept I submit a replacement: Nation-ism.


 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2019 at 7:12 PM, Eiuol said:

That's what I am denying! The suspicion comes first, then needing to know who you are.

LOL, this discussion is a nutty carousel.

You can have suspicion about an individual -- let's say that your intelligence sources have told you that "Gus Fring" is the man responsible for a series of assassinations -- but without knowing which man in a group crossing the border is Gus Fring, or any ability to learn who is who, that suspicion, that evidence, that "probable cause" gets you precisely nowhere.

You can't expect him to wear a name tag.

On 9/18/2019 at 7:12 PM, Eiuol said:

You have been suggesting to detain the person until the authorities have the proper documentation from Paraguay, just in case this person is a wanted fugitive.

Yes. Normally we streamline this process in various ways -- that is, for instance, what passports are for.

Binswanger argues that we ought not have passports or border stops at all. He allows for an unexplored (and I believe ad hoc) exemption in times of war and disease outbreak, but it's completely unclear as to how he would manage such a thing. If we were at war with Paraguay, what precisely would he have us do at the Mexican border -- stop the Paraguayans and only them, without knowing who comes from where? And with no supporting infrastructure like passports, no less?

The broader point is: you can't make these sorts of decisions or distinctions without information. And even if I propose some relatively non-invasive form of information-gathering, like a scanner, you balk. I disagree that asking for identification is sensibly a "search" (let alone "unreasonable" at a border), but if a facial scan is a search, then so too is looking at a person; the facial scan is only arguably more effective or powerful for being tool-assisted, but it is not different in kind. It does the very same essential thing.

Now, we should be sensitive to the question of whether there is some violation of rights even in the proper enforcement of law. But parallel to the discussion you've had elsewhere about radio signals and such, I propose that any genuine violation of rights has some appreciable damage. If I use "your space" in such a way as you're unaware of my usage, and unharmed in any demonstrable fashion, I have not harmed you. And if I scan you, assuming that the procedure is benign (and the same goes for radio waves), I have not harmed you.

It is arguable that the delay in a border crossing is a species of harm, albeit minor -- and I would agree -- but some of these kinds of harms are currently unavoidable in the enforcement of law. Yet your arguments show that you're not really at issue with the minor inconvenience of a stop; you think that the collection of information itself is a violation of right. That's nonsense. Police work without information (and hence, information-gathering) is impossible.

On 9/18/2019 at 7:12 PM, Eiuol said:

If I follow your thought experiment, you are saying that I can imagine my position as an impossible standard.

Frankly, I'm not sure that you have understood me. So let's try again: you have supported the idea of "probable cause." I would like you to support that idea with respect to principles.

Suppose we agree that we seek, through government, to eliminate "the initiation of the use of force." Agreed? Okay, but someone who is suspected of a crime to any degree -- yet not proven to be a criminal -- may not have initiated the use of force at all. Allowing for such a possibility is the very basis of a "trial."

I can suppose at least one alternative, for comparison's sake: Why not, instead, require law enforcement to prove an individual's guilt or criminality before any stop, search or seizure may be made against him -- by trial, in absentia if necessary?

So, given that probable cause will sometimes mean the initiation of force against the innocent -- which is unjust -- how can you support it?

On 9/18/2019 at 7:12 PM, Eiuol said:

I'm not even requiring some high standard to meet.

True. It isn't even clear whether you're suggesting a "standard," as such, at all. If the standard is "that which a judge/justice deems appropriate or reasonable in a given circumstance," which is what a "warrant" represents, then we're golden: judges and justices seem to concur that stops at a border are both appropriate and reasonable.

On 9/18/2019 at 7:12 PM, Eiuol said:

If US law enforcement completely lacks any information at this moment, they are not justified in detaining people until that information is acquired.

Yes: this exactly describes the position of US law enforcement with respect to people outside of their jurisdiction. They completely lack any information. That's not what makes a border stop unjustified; it is what makes a border stop necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

You can have suspicion about an individual -- let's say that your intelligence sources have told you that "Gus Fring" is the man responsible for a series of assassinations -- but without knowing which man in a group crossing the border is Gus Fring, or any ability to learn who is who, that suspicion, that evidence, that "probable cause" gets you precisely nowhere.

You can't expect him to wear a name tag.

Yeah so like obviously no one expects him to wear a name tag. Of course they have to look for Gus. The question is, can the police do just any old thing, as long as it counts as "looking for Gus"? And of course the answer is no. And nobody believes they can, internally to the nation, either. You're either just plain rejecting 4A, or just making a double standard for immigrants.

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

True. It isn't even clear whether you're suggesting a "standard," as such, at all. If the standard is "that which a judge/justice deems appropriate or reasonable in a given circumstance," which is what a "warrant" represents, then we're golden: judges and justices seem to concur that stops at a border are both appropriate and reasonable.

Of course that's not what evidentiary hearings are, silly, or there'd be not point to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 2046 said:

Yeah so like obviously no one expects him to wear a name tag.

Eiuol might. His other investigative idea was to look for bloody arms hanging out of cars -- but I'm thinking that the more sophisticated criminal elements might manage to stay one step ahead of him...

2 hours ago, 2046 said:

Of course they have to look for Gus. The question is, can the police do just any old thing, as long as it counts as "looking for Gus"?

No, the question isn't, "can the police do just any old thing." That's one of your straw men, not the question.

Rather, the question is whether the police can stop people at the border for the purpose of gathering information. My answer to that is yes, because people crossing that border are leaving one jurisdiction, where the government has information regarding them -- including, potentially, a warrant -- to another.

The police cannot do "just any old thing," but they have to be able to do what is both reasonable and necessary to enforce the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DonAthos said:

without knowing which man in a group crossing the border is Gus Fring, or any ability to learn who is who, that suspicion, that evidence, that "probable cause" gets you precisely nowhere.

I've already been saying that you have the ability to learn who he is, who this random person at the border is. You get a warrant. That's all there is to it. You need to have a reason to suspect *that* individual in the car must be Gus Fring. Only after establishing that there is a reason to suspect should you actually search them, in this case, asking a judge for a warrant. I don't mean suspecting that the man in charge of a string of assassinations is Gus Fring, I mean suspecting that the person you want to search (or detain at the border or prevent from entering the country) is in fact critical to your investigation. 

5 hours ago, DonAthos said:

but if a facial scan is a search, then so too is looking at a person; the facial scan is only arguably more effective or powerful for being tool-assisted, but it is not different in kind. It does the very same essential thing.

I argued how it isn't. You didn't push your argument any further. I can't say anything new about it unless you also say something new to my response.
 

5 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Yet your arguments show that you're not really at issue with the minor inconvenience of a stop; you think that the collection of information itself is a violation of right

It's the manner of collection. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think all collection of information is a violation of rights, or that my view implies it. You've been told several times all you need is to get a warrant. Your view seems to be that a warrant gets in the way, that we shouldn't get rid of the need for a warrant in the case of the border. 

5 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Why not, instead, require law enforcement to prove an individual's guilt or criminality before any stop, search or seizure may be made against him -- by trial, in absentia if necessary?

Since I'm perfectly fine about having data, my best answer is: Because of warrants, with some means of inferring that you have a good reason to search someone, and that the person is somehow involved with a crime or threat of a crime. In that way, nobody you search would be innocent. Of course, you might be mistaken, and it turns out the person didn't know anything. In that case, I think it would still be a violation, but not from malicious intent or disregard for rights. 

30 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

The police cannot do "just any old thing," but they have to be able to do what is both reasonable and necessary to enforce the law.

If it is reasonable and necessary, it would be no problem to get a warrant. If it is not reasonable and necessary, you won't get a warrant. You seem doubtful that you could possibly have enough information to get a warrant. I mean, it seems safe to say that you don't think privacy is a right. I can explain it in another thread (so we don't get bogged down in just the context of immigration) what the harm is. It won't matter what I say, you don't even find it problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I've already been saying that you have the ability to learn who he is, who this random person at the border is.

Is this an Abbott and Costello routine? :) The above is the very opposite of what you've been saying. You've been saying that you're not permitted to learn who the random person at the border is -- because he's a random person at the border. If you know he's Gus Fring and that there's a warrant out for his arrest, sure, you can stop him... to... determine that he's Gus Fring and that there's a warrant out for his arrest. But if you don't know he's Gus Fring and that there's a warrant for his arrest, you can't stop him to find out who he is, or whether there's any warrant for his arrest, or anything at all.

If you don't know who he is -- and you don't, because all of that information resides in the country of his former jurisdiction -- then you have no means of finding it out. He started out a random person and he remains that way. If he's holding up a sign that reads, "I'm a criminal -- ask me how!" then you're permitted to question him. If not, then he's free and clear to Topeka (or Albuquerque).

33 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

You get a warrant.

On the basis of what? People crossing the border start at zero -- they're unknown to us practically by definition, until we get particular intelligence. The information which could potentially provide a warrant exists in the country they're exiting. We only know to request/access that information after we know who they are, which we currently accomplish with a border stop/passport.

33 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I argued how it isn't. You didn't push your argument any further. I can't say anything new about it unless you also say something new to my response.

If you had an argument in response which I have not yet addressed, I didn't grok it. I know you've drawn distinctions between "aided" versus "unaided," and 2046 has talked about "active," etc., but these kinds of ad hoc semantic dichotomies do not an argument make as to why there is an essential difference in kind between looking at someone with one's eyes versus the use of a mechanical device to do the same process -- with respect to individual rights or the initiation of force.

You drew an analogy with science, which I criticized in the specific (observing that we do use tools to explore the unknown), but more to the point, we generally use tools to investigate something in more depth with (what is analogous to) "probable cause" because that is (usually) a more efficient use of resources. As to whether use of a scanner would be an efficient use of police resource, to gather information -- well, that's a decision that has to be made by people with expertise in that field. But that's not an argument as to moral right, vis a vis the initiation of the use of force.

And you have also invoked "privacy," but I don't think you've offered anything substantive about that idea, other than that it seems to be set against information gathering... for some unspecified reason.

So if I've missed something, please direct me to it, or restate it here. Otherwise, I don't yet see any real difference between a police officer looking at a person's face versus scanning that person's face -- not as respects individual rights or the initiation of force.

33 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

It's the manner of collection. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think all collection of information is a violation of rights, or that my view implies it.

All right, fine. I'm not going to go pulling quotes to show you where I got that idea... if you say you aren't arguing against the collecting of information, I'll take you at your word.

But now tell me why the manner of collection, specifically a police officer scanning my face, violates my rights. Tell me the harm it does me -- describe the loss I suffer.

33 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

You've been told several times all you need is to get a warrant. Your view seems to be that a warrant gets in the way, that we shouldn't get rid of the need for a warrant in the case of the border. 

Just for a little context, there is no need of a warrant for a border stop, currently. Warrants are a particular device, and they represent a judge's opinion that some police action is... well, warranted. But the same corpus of jurisprudence that has given us things like "warrant" and "probable cause" has also allowed for actions that do not require those particular devices: like a border stop.

33 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Since I'm perfectly fine about having data, my best answer is: Because of warrants, with some means of inferring that you have a good reason to search someone...

You have a good reason to stop someone at the border, too, which is why judges allow this without the need for a warrant.

33 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

...and that the person is somehow involved with a crime or threat of a crime. In that way, nobody you search would be innocent.

Heh, no, sorry, that's not how anything works. :)

The police absolutely search innocent people. You can be accused of a crime, or suspected of a crime -- and be 100% innocent of that crime. (And furthermore being "somehow involved with a crime" does not make you criminal. There are plenty of people involved with a crime who did not themselves commit any crime -- and these people are often subject to the use of force, as in the case of a subpoena. Yet they have not initiated the use of force.)

33 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Of course, you might be mistaken, and it turns out the person didn't know anything. In that case, I think it would still be a violation, but not from malicious intent or disregard for rights. 

All right then, to avoid (or reduce, at least) such violations why not adopt the standard I'd suggested -- why not insist that a person be proven guilty, by trial, before any authorization of force, as in search, seizure, etc.?

If you argue that a border stop is a violation of rights, then why can't I make the very same claim for warrant/probable cause?

33 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

If it is reasonable and necessary, it would be no problem to get a warrant.

Certainly. And it is both reasonable and necessary to stop people at the border -- so much so, that judges don't even require warrants.

33 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

You seem doubtful that you could possibly have enough information to get a warrant. I mean, it seems safe to say that you don't think privacy is a right. I can explain it in another thread (so we don't get bogged down in just the context of immigration) what the harm is. It won't matter what I say, you don't even find it problematic.

Why wouldn't it matter what you say? Don't you have a good argument to make?

But at the moment, no, I don't find it problematic that when I drive from Vancouver, BC to Washington, I have to present my passport. I find it reasonable and supportive of the rule of law. If I'm being violated in that process, I'm unaware of the nature of that violation -- and not that it's an argument in itself, but generally speaking, I'm pretty sensitive to the idea of my own rights. If you searched the forum, you'd find me fairly critical of abuse of police power -- and starkly so on this forum, where so many are dedicated to "law and order" at seemingly any cost.

But knowing my name? Yes, I allow the government this much and I don't call it an abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DonAthos said:

You've been saying that you're not permitted to learn who the random person at the border is -- because he's a random person at the border.

Then I'm afraid you haven't understood what I have been saying. Maybe I should rephrase it. A random person at the border may show some sign of criminal activity or intent. With the sign that you see, you would then seek out a warrant. Then you can detain, arrest, or whatever is proportional to the crime or criminal involvement. I'm saying there is no justification to stop at "random person at the border". So yes, you have the ability to find out who the random person is - if you have a justification to search the random person. It is not a justification to say "but I just want to know about you". You have to say "I want to know about you because I see a lot of weapons in your car through your window" or "I want to know about you because you match a description of a wanted criminal". 

I have no issues with a slowdown like a toll lane has so you can use passive methods of gathering information (I'd argue that there should be a warrant for this even, but this is arguable and I don't want to dive into it's right now). I have issue with demanding documents, or being allowed to detain people while waiting for verification.

10 hours ago, DonAthos said:

We only know to request/access that information after we know who they are, which we currently accomplish with a border stop/passport.

Then you just don't know how analyzing data works. It is bad practice to say "I'm going to look at everything because I just don't know yet what is going on". You would know to get the information by default, and by default, have someone look at changes to the data. Countries already share data. None of your arguments about information work, because they are arguments from ignorance. That's not an insult, I really think your concern of not knowing is because you don't know how much information you can get without any active search.

10 hours ago, DonAthos said:

But now tell me why the manner of collection, specifically a police officer scanning my face, violates my rights. Tell me the harm it does me -- describe the loss I suffer.

The difference isn't aided versus unaided. I already said I don't like that distinction I made anymore. I stand by active versus passive. Is facial scanning a violation? It doesn't matter for our discussion. 
 

10 hours ago, DonAthos said:

And you have also invoked "privacy," but I don't think you've offered anything substantive about that idea, other than that it seems to be set against information gathering... for some unspecified reason.

I have not, and I did that that deliberately. If that's where you want to go next, I will make a new thread so we can remember the change in context.
I do not think how things are now is justified. If there is a Supreme Court case with very good reasons that you've read about detaining immigrants, I'll take a look.

10 hours ago, DonAthos said:

All right then, to avoid (or reduce, at least) such violations why not adopt the standard I'd suggested -- why not insist that a person be proven guilty, by trial, before any authorization of force, as in search, seizure, etc.?

That's a standard demanding infallibility. That's why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

That's a standard demanding infallibility. That's why. 

Let's pursue this.

Nowhere is the proposed standard demanding infallibility. I'm proposing a trial, and that someone be found guilty at said trial, before any use of force is authorized. (You may take this trial to have all of the features of our current system; trial by jury, "beyond a reasonable doubt," etc., apart from any authorized use of force.) You've said that "probable cause" violates rights where "it turns out the person didn't know anything." So we can work to reduce those violations by a more stringent (not infallible) standard.

So, you on board with this? Or do you have a defense to offer for probable cause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, DonAthos said:

I know you've drawn distinctions between "aided" versus "unaided," and 2046 has talked about "active," etc., but these kinds of ad hoc semantic dichotomies do not an argument make as to why there is an essential difference in kind between looking at someone with one's eyes versus the use of a mechanical device to do the same process -- with respect to individual rights or the initiation of force.

No, it's called thinking in terms of essentials and using what're called principles. For example: Observing people as they walk by versus stopping them. Typing a description into a computer versus opening someone's briefcase. Using binoculars to see across a field versus using an x-ray machine to see inside a bag. Using a dog to smell for explosives as people stand in line versus ordering someone to open up their trunk and getting the dog to track inside.

Asking what do these various events have in common what is essential to them, and what differentiates them from each other, while disregarding every other particular detail. Using this method, you reach a single principle designated by the words I chose "passive versus active." Far from ad hoc, it is a conceptual statement that integrates a vast amount of information about all kinds of concrete cases. 

I have no doubt this eludes you. I have no doubt each of the above events seem disconnected and insular, and it seems totally arbitrary whether to endorse any one set of course of actions or policies from them. It seems unconnected to the principle of individual rights and you can't decide whether any of it meets that principle or not. Let's just have a hearing and we'll have to decide if it's "reasonable" and if we decide it's reasonable to stop every white male over six feet on the East End of London to determine whether they're Jack the Ripper on a Tuesday afternoon, then that's reasonable. That's because you're not thinking in terms of essentials or principles at all. And I'm afraid I have no desire to continue the discussion because I feel I've reached the point where we are just repeating ourselves and it has lost whatever usefulness it had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DonAthos said:

So, you on board with this? Or do you have a defense to offer for probable cause?

It makes no sense at all to convict a person before you have any information. Completely backwards. That standard would be infallibility (or at least attempting infallibility) where the absolute only appropriate use of force is *knowing* someone is guilty (motivated because a mistake would be intolerable and unable to make right again). You know it would be stupid, I know it would be stupid, so why are you asking? I'd say move on from this point, it's not getting either of us anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Eiuol said:

It makes no sense at all to convict a person before you have any information.

I didn't say to convict "before you have any information." I said that you could not use force before a conviction. I.e., you may not detain, arrest, search, seize, etc.

You can gather information without using force, right? Isn't that what you've been saying all along?

Quote

That standard would be infallibility (or at least attempting infallibility) where the absolute only appropriate use of force is *knowing* someone is guilty (motivated because a mistake would be intolerable and unable to make right again).

No, nothing here is suggesting infallibility. A trial conviction is not guaranteed to be infallible with respect to innocence (and there are people who are currently convicted of crimes... yet are innocent); it is only a more stringent, higher standard.

But isn't a more stringent, higher standard to be preferred in the defense of our rights?

Quote

You know it would be stupid, I know it would be stupid, so why are you asking?

Would you like to know how your position re: border stops strikes me...? :)

But sometimes we have to discuss even things or aspects of a situation that strike us as silly, or what-have-you, in order to discuss a subject effectively. There is obviously a disconnect between our positions, and we've been talking a bit in circles, so I'm hoping that this will help us to target that disconnect more precisely.

Quote

I'd say move on from this point, it's not getting either of us anywhere.

I believe that's because you're not allowing yourself truly to engage my questions. You keep deflecting with notions like "infallibility" which you are yourself supplying. Let all that go and just let yourself respond honestly to the matter I've raised.

I charge that "probable cause" violates rights, and you appear to have agreed with me. If we adopted instead a standard whereby force may only be used against people convicted of crimes, we would violate fewer people's rights in that manner (and probably far fewer). Given this, how can you defend the use of "probable cause" as against the superior standard I've introduced?

Edited by DonAthos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

It makes no sense at all to convict a person before you have any information. Completely backwards.

If you can't convict a person before you have any information, wouldn't you have to "initiate force" (by your own logic) to search potentially innocent but suspicious people, then gather information and convict them?

Or are you suggesting that it's not a violation of rights to initiate force against innocent people, as long as they're "suspicious-looking"? Or do people stop being innocent if they're "suspicious-looking"?

Why are you using double standards for immigrants? If innocent but suspicious citizens can be searched for information without violating rights, why can't immigrants be asked for information?

Also, your magical solution to let anyone walk through the border without being asked for information is probably the stupidest immigration policy ever and hurts legitimate immigrants.

For example, across the India-Pakistan border, the Pakistani Agency (ISI) trains and sends terrorists and insurgents across the border, disguised as immigrants. Pakistan has government projects setup to infiltrate India, disguised as immigrants. Since these terrorists are part of the Pakistani government, they can easily obtain Pakistani passports and fake visas to India. Now your solution to all this is to just let the Pakistani Army just walk in, no questions asked?

Edited by human_murda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think very pertinent to many debates, is this passage from Truth and Toleration by David Kelley, in reply to Peikoff's accusations of his subjectivity during the period of Objectivist in-fighting.

"Fundamentally, the choice is objectivity versus non-objectivity in its various forms. Being objective in practice, however, does require a kind of mental balancing that sometimes feels like striking a compromise. We have to hold in mind both the requirements of reality and of our own nature, and if we focus too narrowly on one or the other, we tend to slide into intrinsicism or subjectivism".

"Peikoff is giving voice to intrinsicism--a belief that the truth is revealed and that error reflects a willful refusal to see".

So once again, we have a separation of the ideal from facts, more accurately, one's principles from contextual reality. I.e.: such and such has been revealed as "good", therefore reality must be made to accomodate it  - come what may.

Aka, intrinsicism. Avoiding this trap could result in slipping into the subjectivism trap, but needn't. Sometimes the objective path is not so obvious and self-evident. Ultimately, our principles serve us, and being a slave to a principle may be self-defeating when contexts are not as yet clear. One identifies the context before applying the proper principle.

Nothing changes within O'ism. 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DonAthos said:

But sometimes we have to discuss even things or aspects of a situation that strike us as silly, or what-have-you, in order to discuss a subject effectively.

It's not that I think it's silly. I don't get it, I don't know what you're asking. I'm bad at answering questions when I don't know why you're asking. I don't know what to tell you except that my standard is justified suspicion, and my direct comparison to science. If you're looking for more, I can't do any better right now.

2 hours ago, human_murda said:

Or do people stop being innocent if they're "suspicious-looking"?


Basically; that is, the suspicion should be justified in terms of expecting a crime will occur or when there is an imminent threat of a crime. 
 

2 hours ago, human_murda said:

Also, your magical solution to let anyone walk through the border without being asked for information is probably the stupidest immigration policy ever and hurts legitimate immigrants.

So stupid that it was done for most of American history. But do keep in mind that I'm not completely against border stops so you can look at license plates and whatnot (and my view, if implemented, would imply that there is no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate immigrant). 

2 hours ago, human_murda said:

Now your solution to all this is to just let the Pakistani Army just walk in, no questions asked?

I've made it consistently clear that intelligence agencies would be important, and those agencies would provide the information necessary to determine suspects. 
 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The over-identification and extreme regulation in societies, everyone has to put up with, unpalatable and contra-privacy as is this status quo, is a fact of life today. But now, one is asked to accept in good faith the many 1000's of unidentified people who don't have to suffer the same fact. Why do they enjoy a right to anonymity, which no one else gets? Moreso, when another fact of life, is that having the advantage of being unknown, will undoubtedly encourage a larger number of law-breakers to enter the borders, mixed with the majority of law abiding migrants? Easy pickings. You have the freedom to do whatever you want at lesser risk of getting caught. Consequently, existing citizens will reasonably grow suspicious of anyone they observe who ~might~ fit the profile - and you get social unrest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2019 at 12:14 AM, Eiuol said:

 

This isn't just directed at WhyNot, but also people like Wayne. Even people who are otherwise rational (eg Sowell). I don't mean interest in immigration restrictions, but I mean their very empty-of-concretes talking points. I've seen ethnostate advocates make better arguments, because they at least mention concrete facts. "Much needed reality to the abstraction" would be concretizing ideas - but we got none of that. It might be about past immigration policy, or if
 

I know that Sowell has a fund of thought-through knowledge about these issues (concrete and conceptual) beyond yours. "Much needed reality" refers to his integrated grasp of reality, not 'data' (which he evidently is most familiar with, too) which you expect, divorced from (floating) abstractions. Education? he's written the book on the damage which earlier social justice and PC types have perpetrated on the schooling system. 

"Such high-handedness is neither incidental nor accidental". TS.

Well said, sir!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2019 at 2:57 AM, whYNOT said:

"No special geographical location is required..." is NOT true. Can it be the American govt. is required to protect and preserve the rights of, say, an individual today in his home in Switzerland? In Moldova? Of a Mexican citizen just the other side of the Rio Grande in Mexico?

Absolutely. I just wanted to underscore, briefly, that the question is not whether immigrants HAVE every single right a native can logically claim to have (they do) but precisely who is responsible for SAFEGUARDING those rights, and how. If you'd agree with that (as I suspect) then there's nothing else I could add to it.

Quote

The WHOLE purpose (to my mind) of an immigration application is the immigrant's self-determined conviction to become a citizen after a reasonable period. Who could properly deny him that right, "after decades of residency"? This block to a migrant's citizenship defeats the good will of others (existing citizens) which overcomes their suspicion, paranoia and fear of the foreigner.

And that's where I'm gonna have to stop you.

I once spent about 2 weeks in Finland with the intention of immigrating for a foreign-exchange student I'd known in High School. During that time, although I was no less opinionated than I've always been, I had no interest in the Finnish political life. It was more than I could handle to learn a whole new language and get used to what's served at a Finnish McDonald's; learning all the context I'd need to even know who I'd agree with was nowhere near the top of my to-do list. And from the American immigrants I've met since then I think I'm qualified to deny that such an attitude is unique either to Finland or to one's first few weeks.

As appealing as a welfare handout is to some, the possibility of voting takes a good long while to enter the minds of most immigrants (except for certain explicit Islamists - and screw those guys, anyway).

On 9/24/2019 at 2:57 AM, whYNOT said:

Then, what is it about "...defending freedom of entry and residency, not the granting of citizenship or voting rights, not even after decades of residency"??

Finding work, housing, love (etc) here is very different from voting on how we run the country, itself. The former should only be denied to those who're obviously dangerous while the latter should only be granted to those who prove themselves worthy.

And if such restrictions weren't just applied to immigrants, but to the population at large (as the Founding Fathers originally had it) - personally, that's an idea I could really and truly get behind.

 

Service guarantees citizenship! ;)

 

On 9/24/2019 at 9:34 AM, Eiuol said:

So then you end up focusing on the one sentence, but not the major content of his essay. That's what I did when I first looked at the essay, but then after digesting it, in my mind, he didn't actually mean nothing.

He meant that anyone who doesn't have dismembered limbs hanging out of their vehicles should be allowed to come and go as they please (which is neither how we currently do things nor, in my mind, how we ought to do things).

On 9/24/2019 at 9:34 AM, Eiuol said:

Does this mean you think that privacy isn't a right?

Yes. I do not believe that privacy, as such, is a right.

I have the right to be left alone (including to not have anybody, with or without a badge, pestering me and rummaging through my stuff without a warrant) but there is no such thing as a right to 'not have X known about'. Such a thing implies that in certain situations it would violate my rights for you to NOT avert your eyes and mind (not just rude but actually criminal and punishable). And that's a premise I could really have fun with if anyone here cares to defend if.

 

Not only is privacy not a legitimate right but the preservations of the rights of all Americans (as well as those in many other countries, to boot) specifically requires that law enforcement look through their own eyes and think with their own brains, to the utmost best of their ability, and this is specifically what would be wrong with absolutely open borders (like Binswanger really does advocate).

On 9/24/2019 at 4:12 PM, Wayne said:

But the other factor is the immigration of many people who do not know or care about what America’s founding principles are. Of course, most of them want to work and that is good. But they will vote for people who promise entitlements.

Of all the immigrants I have personally known (including myself while I intended to stay in Finland) not a single one has had any sympathy for the Democrats. In fact, my own uncle (who STILL can't pronounce certain English words properly) is a die-hard Rush Limbaugh listener who would've voted for Reagan, if he could've.

I'd be very interested in digging up the statistics about that claim because what I've seen "in the wild" has only ever supported its exact opposite.

On 9/24/2019 at 4:12 PM, Wayne said:

Many American people are legitimately concerned about these issues. They understand, at least implicitly, that we are in danger of losing the America that we have known. It is not racism. 

Sometimes; certainly. I wouldn't even be surprised if that was true of most like-minded Americans.

 

 

On 9/25/2019 at 12:00 PM, Wayne said:

There is much to agree with in Objectivism itself. But Objectivists are another story.

I simply must hear the rest of that story. I don't have to comment on it, if you'd prefer, but please explain everything else you mean by that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must apologize. I did not mean to denigrate Objectivists. I follow some people who call themselves Objectivists, for example on Twitter, who I think have an unreasonable or excessive -- even obsessive -- dislike of Trump.  There is much to criticize but he has some good qualities.

But I agree with Objectivism and what Objectivists say.  I have some minor disagreements with some issues but I believe Objectivism as a philosophy is sound.

Concerning open borders and immigration and Sowell's concerns -- as is usually the case, the conversation is not about the same thing. No one is against immigration -- even opening up more immigration. Of course, many immigrants understand American political philosophy but many do not. America of course cannot have a political litmus test of who is allowed to immigrate. I don't know what the answer is. But I continue to have concerns about a completely open border. Binswanger, et. al. say that new immigrants should not get entitlements or be allowed to vote. But this ignores practical realities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I have concerns" isn't any justification for what you say, Wayne, what you said is still meaningless. You didn't really say anything, without any mention of facts. Just intuitions (intuitions that other people here don't even have). Sowell isn't even a good reference, because he gets facts wrong in that essay, or says things that don't follow. 

 

15 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

He meant that anyone who doesn't have dismembered limbs hanging out of their vehicles should be allowed to come and go as they please (which is neither how we currently do things nor, in my mind, how we ought to do things).

Where? I think you're mixing that up with me. And I wasn't even referring to that being the only justification to stop someone. It was just the easiest justification you could possibly have. I don't think Binswanger gave a good defense of his position, sure. He could have done better, and I would have used different words if I were him. But he made no argument about law enforcement procedures, only to say that immigrant status doesn't change the justifications required for searching someone (or demanding documents, or detaining them). This has no implications either for protecting the rights of people, because he was writing about *violations* of rights.

15 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Such a thing implies that in certain situations it would violate my rights for you to NOT avert your eyes and mind

I don't think so. I just have to stipulate "reasonable expectation of privacy ". It's about having control over your life and controlling the information about it, which of course you made and created, and is of value to yourself. Also, looking with your mind in thinking can't physically violate anything. The way to violate privacy is forcible searches without consent, demanding documents without consent, the kind of information you can't acquire by looking at someone. I'll have to make another post about this sometime, because I think it also is a crucial reason that abortion should be legal. It actually affects a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well let's just cut out "agreeing or disagreeing with Objectivism" because that isn't, or shouldn't be, even a question here. The thing is, there are a bunch of people that would move to the US, if they could. Should we restrict them or not? 

4 hours ago, Wayne said:

Binswanger, et. al. say that new immigrants should not get entitlements or be allowed to vote. But this ignores practical realities.

What political realities? Illegal immigrants can't vote. Legal immigrants have to wait 5 years before they can even apply for citizenship, and then they have to wait in line and pass an English and Civics exam. Then the data shows that foreign-born citizens vote less often than native-born citizens. The data also shows the foreign-born poor consume less entitlements than native-born poor. (The US entitlement system mostly is aimed at the elderly and corporations, not the poor anyway, but that's the side point.)

So, really, what political reality are you talking about? You guys don't look at facts. There is no data that will convince you because you are convinced on other grounds.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2019 at 6:59 PM, Wayne said:

I must apologize. I did not mean to denigrate Objectivists. I follow some people who call themselves Objectivists, for example on Twitter, who I think have an unreasonable or excessive -- even obsessive -- dislike of Trump.  There is much to criticize but he has some good qualities.

 

"Good qualities" to have when there's an ideological battle for the free world going on. 

"Of course he has his critics, and sometimes with good reason. He could be stubborn and impetuous, driven by ego, and sometimes unsympathetic to the plight of others (especially if they were not British, English-speaking or from a ‘Christian civilization’)".

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He could be a boor, crass, thin-skinned, bombastic and dogmatic. Unappealing to the delicate intelligentsia then. By all accounts. In another prudish time. For all that, Winston Churchill was the right PM in the right place at the right time. Lucky for us, he had supporters who were intellectual realists, not self-sacrificing appeasers of Germany. 

Edited by whYNOT
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...