Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Illegal Immigration & Objectivism

Rate this topic


Capleton

Recommended Posts

Again, my question is, from a *selfish*, not an altruist perspective, why don't we keep the best and brightest where they will stay and fight for what is ultimately our security in their own Muslim countries?

I am positing a rational reason. Draining people from Iran and Afghanistan and India is hurting our security. We are taking wave after wave of potential founding fathers and allowing those countries to decay into the horrendous states they are today. Or aren't we? That is the issue I want to discuss.

Rather ironic to see altruism being presented as egoism in an Objectivist-oriented forum, ain't it? Perhaps I should go back to the country of my family's origin, Nicaragua, and try to become a "founding father" and "fight" for the sake of what is "ultimately toward America's security" since it is pretty much nothing but a horrendous third-world nation? Perhaps I should not want to live where I can best pursue my dreams? Perhaps you know better than I, and should have the right to arbitrarily (on the grounds of a homeland being in a "horrendous state") deny me the wish of pursuing these dreams? Please get your ethics in order before continuing to post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? Explain what you mean. Is there a political right to come to the United States? Enlighten me.

My perspective is this: what gives you the right to deny my control over who can join the citizenry legally and who can't?

Of course there's a right. Do you think that the U.S. belongs to you or "society"? The fact that there are irrational anti-immigration laws in no way affects that right.

Again, my question is, from a *selfish*, not an altruist perspective, why don't we

Who in the hell is "we"?

keep the best and brightest where they will stay and fight for what is ultimately our security in their own Muslim countries?

Oh right, and Ayn Rand should have stayed in Russia to be an unknown martyr on the altar of communist sacrifice - then "we" all would have been better off!

You seem to think that a dictatorship - and any Islamic theocracy is a terrible dictatorship - will somehow abide dissenters. And *atheistic* dissenters who would rationally believe that Islam and Allah are a complete bunch of crap. Perhaps you should spend at least 5 seconds actually concretizing your ideas! People are brutally tortured and murdered every single day in those countries for far less.

The U.S. should accept *any* person into this country who is capable of taking care of themselves (or who have relatives able to do so) and who do not pose an objective threat to the country, without any of the ridiculous hassles currently involved to become a citizen. Unless you are an American Indian, if you're an American you owe your existence to the ability of your ancestors to have immigrated here, many long before stupid anti-immigration laws came into being. The U.S. could physically handle every person on earth and still have a lower population density than the U.K., so there isn't even a lame objection about room. Anybody who has ever driven across the country knows that this country is virtually empty outside of the large cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Felipe,

Of course, go back to where you came from. I am saying the same thing about adopted children when I support abortion. I love to hear that argument. Aren't you confusing the potential with the actual? Rule # 1 in political discussions, though I too find it easy to break, is avoid making it personal. I have a question for you, not an insult. I have not applied egoism to every detail of politics. Since I am not from another country, this has been the last thing on my mind. I would like to though, which is why I asked the question.

I was not trying to assert a moral responsibility of these people to stay. The loudest reason in my head says "flee for your lives to the USA!" I was simply wondering if the United States should have a standard that keeps elites in problem countries without asserting a moral responsibility. If that is exactly what that is, then that is an interesting point and I am horrified for suggesting it. Is that what that is? I would appreciate explication. Why is it the case that keeping people out of the US for security reasons constitutes a moral message. Is that too slippery? I think you might be right, "nor ever ask another man to live for mine."

Edited by unskinned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you are an American Indian, if you're an American you owe your existence to the ability of your ancestors to have immigrated here, many long before stupid anti-immigration laws came into being. The U.S. could physically handle every person on earth and still have a lower population density than the U.K., so there isn't even a lame objection about room. Anybody who has ever driven across the country knows that this country is virtually empty outside of the large cities.

No one is making any argument about room or jobs. On this thread. (Noone is lunchtime, Poppycock, naturally)

"Of course there's a right. Do you think that the U.S. belongs to you or "society"?"

I am a citizen. Does it not belong to anyone? I'm not challenging you, it's a serious question. Are you saying that ownership is an inappropriate term for corporations?

Edited by unskinned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Felipe, Of course, go back to where you came from.
I will assume that you did not mean that seriously! If you're wondering about a hypothetical, that's one thing. If you're sure enough to be asking people to leave, you might find that whether or not countries are "owned" , forums definitely are. (Just struck me that three Admins here are immigrants .)

In my opinion, continuing to discuss the specific topic of immigration would be futile unless you explain your position on government and rights: Where do rights come from? Does a country have rights? Do individuals have rights? Do the people in a country have the right to make a citizen to go fight a war? Do they have the right to ask make a citizen pay taxes? Why do we need rights?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you actually trying to make it *appear* as if I was asking Felipe to return to Nicaragua? There is no question that that was a joke. Did you think I was also suggesting adopted children be sent back to the womb? Did you not read the rest of my post which basically concedes the point? I smell fear of political incorrectness overpowering reason. Please reread what I wrote, maybe it will make more sense in this light.

"I think you might be right, 'nor ever ask another man to live for mine.'" I was letting him know that my position on the subject is clarifying in the traditional objectivist direction.

As for my conception of rights, I think it they are a political expression of a moral good. I think all people are basically morally good as long as they do not initiate physical force. Rights are a politcal expression and must be protected. The job of the United States is to protect the rights of its citizens and nothing more. It is not an automatic extension of rights to all peoples of the world, however deserving. If there were an immigration policy that was making the world unsafe for loose nukes, that would be terrible. Despite your condescension, this particular topic is not covered in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal.

But let me be clear: I no longer believe we are draining the world. And I am coming to realize that, even if we were, to ask people to stay in their countries necessarily sends an abominable moral message. I should have left in the part I deleted from my post which says:

"I understand your incredulity because this is roughly the theme of Atlas Shrugged." And then I wrote something to the effect of "people should be allowed to come to the valley and, if they like, plan the revolution from here, ('we're going back to the world') or simply live their lives here as free men."

Edited by unskinned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you actually trying to make it *appear* as if I was asking Felipe to return to Nicaragua? There is no question that that was a joke.

Apparently, there was some question as to your seriousness. You should be aware that sometimes sarcasm and joking aren't relayed well over the internet. Quite frequently an OVERT indication is necessary to relay these concepts to readers. (emoticons, etc.) What may be clear in your mind, may not be clear in the mind of your readers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you actually trying to make it *appear* as if I was asking Felipe to return to Nicaragua?
Well, I'm glad you cleared that up.

Despite your condescension, this particular topic is not covered in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal.
It was not from condescension that I told you to read VofS and CUI. From your statement that about what you thought was the standard Objectivist view on the issue, I assumed you were a novice Objectivist who had not read about rights.

You say that moral governments do not care about the rights of non-citizens. What principle then stops a government from plundering a neighbouring nation, capturing its inhabitants as slaves and bringing them to work for the citizens of the homeland? What principle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

*** Mod's note: Merged with an existing thread. -sN ***

Okay, as a capitalist, I believe in an open border. However, it seems to me that, as long as there are regulations on immigration, they should be obeyed. This is not because the law is moral, by virtue of its being "the law." This is because I believe that, in a nation of law, those laws should actually be enforced. Otherwise, this becomes a nation ruled by men instead of law.

This is the same reason why I believe Martha Stewart should have been punished, not for insider trading (because what she did was not illegal), but because she lied to federal investigators. She shouldn't have been in trouble in the first place, but since she lied to investigators, rather than telling the truth and defending her actions, I supported some form of legal sanction against her.

Where am I wrong?

Edited by softwareNerd
"Merged" notice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should these people be sacrificed to "the rule of law", considering the laws they broke are immoral in the first place? They have violated no one's rights, the use of force against them is an aggression - whether the mob declares it legal or not.

mrock

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how hordes of collectivist thinking mob rule knowing uneducated people can do anything BUT stomp on my rights and the rights of my fellow individuals.

Calling the law to protect our borders immoral is truly blind thinking. You cant be free in a society full of people not abiding but the fabric that makes this a fantastic country.

Anyone who wants to me an American should be able to by following the rules that are in place to protect the individual rights of the rest of us.

A land bridge gives them no more right then my people had to be here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not debating that immigration restrictions are immoral. What I am saying is that, if we don't enforce laws (even the immoral ones), then all laws lose their legitimacy. People will start to think they can just go around breaking laws that they don't like, and not have to worry about reaping the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The short answer is that some laws are so unjust – such as the Fugitive Slave Act – that the rights they violate are more important than the rule of law. If you don’t know which laws are grossly unjust, we can talk about that.

Besides that, “rule of law” means “rule by objective laws.” Anti-immigration laws are not objective. They discriminate by race, nationality, religion, employment, and citizenship, and their enforcement even within those parameters is totally arbitrary.

By the way – do you drive over the speed limit? The speed limit is generally an objective law. Yet almost everyone violates in on a daily basis. Why? Because the law itself is arbitrary set, arbitrarily enforced, and sometimes downright dangerous. (Just try driving the limit of 55-60 in 75mph traffic in Dallas.)

The rule of law is a valid principle. But it is not a blank check to the state, and does not triumph individual rights, especially when the process of law-making itself is corrupt.

(Edit: clarify wording)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll buy that explanation. But I think that opens up the debate to whether or not immigration restrictions are more important than the rule of law.

I haven't decided where I stand yet, so don't take this as anything more than me playing devil's advocate, but I think what some people would say is that anyone is welcome, provided that they take the time to go through the legal avenues that are required.

EDIT: Apply what I just said to Mexico, not other countries. Mexico may suck, but it's not a totalitarian system like that of Cuba or Soviet Russia. If Cubans want to illegally come here, I would not at all support turning them back.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an important question and it's too easy to get sidetracked by other questions. The "rule of law" question only makes sense when applied to government action -- should the government enforce its laws. Not, "should moral Mexicans refuse to enter the US illegally", but specifically and only, should the government enforce the laws that it creates. A contradiction is created immediately when you have an immoral law -- there should be no law prohibiting immigration. Acting in accord with the dictates of some law is not at all a virtue if it comes at the price of violating the rights of people and contradicting the function of government. So putting the "rule of law" principle over the "protecting rights" principle is an inversion of the function of government, one that yields the same evil as making the nation be a nation ruled by men and not laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I checked there is no LAW stating immigration is illegal. Check out the INS and people taking English classes, learning some civics etc. They came legally and should be welcomed with open arms individually.

The country and thus myself is better off with legal immigration by those who RESPECT the country they wish to live in enough to find the legal means to come.

The slave law and this being used as evidence for open migration and the ‘Reconquista’ politics is frightening at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An end to immigration quotas is demanded by the principle of individual rights. Every individual has rights as an individual, not as a member of this or that nation. One has rights not by virtue of being an American, but by virtue of being human.

From Harry Binswanger's article, Open Immigration

Frankly, I'm amazed I'm the first person to refer to this. Granted Binswanger's opinion on this is by no means the concensus among Objectivists (even ARI folks), but his arguments have certainly swayed me since I attended his NYU talk on the subject.

Basically I think the question should be, "What are the reasons for keeping immigrants who are healthy and law-abiding out of our country?". You may argue that they are not being kept out, but just try to legally obtain a visa to work here without sponsorship, bribes, or some other form of special permission. The fact is there are very limited quotas dictating how many people will be allowed to enter the country, and this is mainly justified by invoking several myths, most notably that immigrants will "steal jobs" from equally qualified Americans, and that the US is somehow overpopulated (on that point Binswanger gleefully torpedoes the misinformation with a clever little table).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the government should not enforce its own laws, then everyone starts to think it's okay to break laws that they disagree with.

Assuming theres an objective basis for disagreeing with those laws, then it is. The "Rule of Law" idea is oppressive and just serves to legitimise the status quo - "you must obey the rules, regardless of what the rules state". Unjust laws should not be obeyed, as long as you can get away with breaking them; it's grossly immoral to demand that people sacrifice themselves in order to uphold the legitimacy of a state which is passing laws which violate rights, regardless of whether these laws pertain to slavery, immigration or drug use.

edit: I dont think theres a real distinction between "laws that are so unjust" (GC), they override Rule of Law and laws that arent and dont. The Fugitive Slave Act was obviously a travesty, but consider something more benign - laws which ban sodomy. Many states in the US have had these until recently, and as far as I know, several still do. I wouldnt say that they are a gross infringement of rights on the same level as the slave act - they can still exist within a society which is otherwise relatively free. But assuming that you are a homosexual, why should you obey them? Why would you give up sexual intercourse with your partner just because the government says you have to? Do you really want to say that gay couples who disobey this law are acting immorally?

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to get the terms right: if one obeys a law primarily because one is afraid of being caught, that is not an example of respect-for-law. So "rule-of-law" refers to following a law because it is the law, not because of fear of the authorities.

Given that, here's a preliminary question to rule-of-law advocates: within the context of the current U.S. legal system [not Soviet Russia, etc.], is there any law you would contemplate breaking? For instance, would rule-of-law apply to personal laws that do not affect anybody else: if you were home alone and 20 years old and the liquor cabinet was open and the home owner had told you to help yourself, and you wanted a drink, and you had no fear of getting caught by the law, would you still refrain because it is the law? If yes, then is there any other example that you can think of where you might contemplate breaking the law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to get the terms right: if one obeys a law primarily because one is afraid of being caught, that is not an example of respect-for-law. So "rule-of-law" refers to following a law because it is the law, not because of fear of the authorities.
If that's how you define it... but then "rule of law" is clearly an evil philosophy. It is pure, unvarnished legal positivism, slavish obedience to the crown. Under that definition, I would advocate "anti-rule of law". Do what is right, because it is right, and not because the sovereign demands obedience.
Given that, here's a preliminary question to rule-of-law advocates: within the context of the current U.S. legal system [not Soviet Russia, etc.], is there any law you would contemplate breaking?
Definitely. Any tax laws, immigration laws, zoning ordinances, environmental regulations (while at the same time respecting the property rights of others), controlled substances laws. There are some laws which I definitely would not violate, such as laws against assault, murder, theft, fraud. I would be uncertain about certain ones, for example copying a certain amount of the intellectual product of another's mind -- I have no question about copying Thomas Paine, and no question about copying certain amounts of Ayn Rand's words for certain purposes, but for example I would not engage in wholesale copying of the entirety of Atlas Shrugged, and here I would distinguish between AS and Anthem. The reason is that the property status of these works is not easily decidable (whereas the general propriety of immigration is), so the particular law represents a carefully reasoned and concrete decision which I would respect, since there is no clear reason to disrespect it.

I would not obey a law that prevented me from making more that X% profit because it is the law. I might obey it because the consequences of being punished would be too much for me to bear, or I might violate the law and let them do what they will. But for sure, I would not obey an immoral law simply because it was the law.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...