Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Illegal Immigration & Objectivism

Rate this topic


Capleton

Recommended Posts

Capitalism Forever,Jun 6 2004, 04:08 AM

...if a woman in a bikini who claims to be armed--but you see that she isn't--demands the same, you would be a fool if you complied without at least asking her to show her weapon.
Or at least ...err...show something else. :)

But what Stephen is advocating is even more than succumbing to merely verbal threats that lack credibility. He is advocating that we subject ourselves to unjust laws even in the absence of any kind of threat at all--that we give the robber the $100 even before he claims to be armed.

Yes, I agree. If laws are violating your rights I believe you are entitled to evade them. Not required to evade them, but you can at least attempt to minimize the extent to which they penalize you. The extent to which you do so is up to you and should be tempered by a degree of necessary prudence to avoid fines or jail terms - and of course you should not do so in any way that violates anyone else's rights.

The underlying point of the Rule of Law is that laws be just, clear, fair and reasonable and apply equally to everyone. Certainly in situations where laws are inherently absurd or their application almost entirely arbitrary and where enforcement is spotty and compliance erratic, you would be acting sacrificially to volunteer to penalize yourself. In cases where laws constitute egregious violations of rights, they should be actively resisted and fought.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred, we do not base our ethics upon the penetrating question  "who gets the last banana when two men are stranded on a deserted island," and we do not base our notion of the rule of law on the penetrating question (pun intended) "do we use condoms in our home if we live in Connecticut?"

I just thought I'd try to get a rise out of you.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what Stephen is advocating is even more than succumbing to merely verbal threats that lack credibility. He is advocating that we subject ourselves to unjust laws even in the absence of any kind of threat at all--that we give the robber the $100 even before he claims to be armed.

Just because I stated that I will not discuss this issue any further with you and others, does not give you the right to manufacture stories about what I am supposedly "advocating." Feel free to take any of the words and ideas that I actually did say and criticize those to your heart's content. But, please refrain from attributing to me what I did not say.

And, to others, I am not responsible for anyone else's bizarre interpretations of what I have actually said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, I know you haven't been advocating giving $100 to a robber before you even know he is armed. However, you HAVE been advocating submission to unjust laws as a matter of principle. I was drawing an analogy between the two: giving away the $100 to a robber you don't even know is armed is analogous to obeying an unjust law even if you know no one will notice or care.

My point with the analogy is that the one is just as bizarre as the other. Unforced infliction of injustice on oneself has a way of being bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, I know you haven't been advocating giving $100 to a robber ...

Then why did you say it? You claimed "Stephen is advocating " and "He is advocating." Surely I have written enough about this that you should have no difficulty finding words I actually said, to argue against, instead of arguing against what you manufactured and attributed to me.

I will not be debating you, so you have a clear field. You can criticize my ideas to your heart's content. Just be honest and quote my words and argue agaqinst what I actually said, instead of manufacturing something I did not say, to argue against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why are you focusing specifically on "illegal aliens"

Well.... because this here thread is called "Illegal Immigration & Objectivism," that's why. ;)

I'm going to have to go the way of Stephen on this one. I'm not going to try and allege I can report on his position for him; I'm just mostly in agreement with his position, per his prior writings, on this particular issue. And also, on his choice to refrain from further debate when there doesn't seem much point of continued discussion. I was really ready to be refuted, but somehow "taxes are bad" therefore "coming to America and breaking our laws is moral" doesn't wash for me. But I really appreciate all the feedback; I'll never claim to be all knowing and I love to hear other well reasoned opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why did you say it? You claimed "Stephen is advocating " and "He is advocating."

This is what I said:

"But what Stephen is advocating is even more than succumbing to merely verbal threats that lack credibility. He is advocating that we subject ourselves to unjust laws even in the absence of any kind of threat at all--that we give the robber the $100 even before he claims to be armed."

The part after the "--" is the analogy; I never stated or implied that you have said anything to that effect. The part before the "--" is what you actually have been advocating.

You DID say that we should subject ourselves to unjust laws even if there is no threat of them being enforced, out of respect for the rule of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

Can you not see that what I say, and your interpretation of what I say, are not necessarily the same things? I am asking you to distinguish what I say, from your interpretation of it. Just quote my actual words, and then give all the interpretation you want. That way other people can judge for themselves whether my words and your interpretation are the same.

Instead of doing this, you say things like "Stephen is advocating ...," which implies that what follows is what I have actually advocated, and that may not be true. Since I have written dozens of posts on this subject, and you think I am so wrong, you should have no difficulty in finding words I actually uttered to argue against. Just quote my actual words, and say something like "I inteprret this to mean that ..." That would be an honest separation, and, as far as I am concerned, then you can argue into the next decade for all I care. At least then, what I said, and your interpretation of what I said, will be clearly distinguished.

I think I am making a reasonable request. Why is this so difficult for you to understand, and to abide by?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you not see that what I say, and your interpretation of what I say, are not necessarily the same things? I am asking you to distinguish what I say, from your interpretation of it. Just quote my actual words, and then give all the interpretation you want. That way other people can judge for themselves whether my words and your interpretation are the same.

My interpretation of this quote from Stephen is that he wants you to avoid putting your words in his mouth. If it is just your conclusion, and not what he said in actuality - show it!

On the other hand, I think if you are merely rephrasing what he said, but not interpreting it, you can say "Stephen said".

For example: "Stephen said that his words and your interpretation are not necessarily the same, and you should differentiate the two."

It is my educated guess that Stephen will have no problem with the sentence above.

(Sorry for overusing your name, Stephen :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My interpretation of this quote from Stephen is that he wants you to avoid putting your words in his mouth. If it is just your conclusion, and not what he said in actuality - show it!

Thank you for the translation. :P

On the other hand, I think if you are merely rephrasing what he said, but not interpreting it, you can say "Stephen said".

For example: "Stephen said that his words and your interpretation are not necessarily the same, and you should differentiate the two."

It is my educated guess that Stephen will have no problem with the sentence above.

I have no problem with that sentence. However, if someone characteristically misinterprets me, then any rephrasing on their part remains a problem, one which I would prefer not having to police so that my views are not publicly misrepresented.

But all of this is simply resolved. Just quote the words I actually said and argue against that. No need to rephrase.

(Sorry for overusing your name, Stephen :D )

Do I have a quota? :D

p.s. Is there some short explanation somewhere of what each of the Smilies means? Some are obvious to me, but others I am not so sure about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure:

:huh: - Confused smily

:o - Shocked smily

;) - Winking smily

:P - Toungue in cheeck smily (also - just kidding smily)

:D - Laughing smily

:lol: - Laughing out loud smily

B) - Cool smily

:P - Coquetting smily

:D - Resentful smily

:) - Happy smily

:angry: - Angry smily

:( - Sad smily

:blink: - Shock and confusion rolled into one.

:ph34r: - Ninja smily

:yarr: - Pirate smily

:nerd: - Nerd smily

:D - Really confused smily

:warn: - Warning

:D - Dough! smily

:pimp: - Pimp smily

Post Icons also have Vomiting smily, Scared smily, and Meditative smily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure:

:huh:  - Confused smily

:o  - Shocked smily

;)  - Winking smily

:P  - Toungue in cheeck smily (also - just kidding smily)

:D  - Laughing smily

:lol:  - Laughing out loud smily

B)  - Cool smily

:P  - Coquetting smily

:D  - Resentful smily

:)  - Happy smily

:angry:  - Angry smily

:(  - Sad smily

:blink: - Shock and confusion rolled into one.

:ph34r:  - Ninja smily

:yarr:  - Pirate smily

:nerd: - Nerd smily

:D - Really confused smily

:warn:  - Warning

:D  - Dough! smily

:pimp:  - Pimp smily

Post Icons also have Vomiting smily, Scared smily, and Meditative smily.

Thanks. That was helpful. These explanations should be accessible somewhere on the OO web site as an info file (it is is not already).

Just two questions.

Is the "Dough" supposed to be the Simpsons' "D'oh?"

Is the "Pimp" really meant as the commonplace use of the word "pimp?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you not see that what I say, and your interpretation of what I say, are not necessarily the same things?

If my interpretation is indeed wrong, then I apologize for having misrepresented you. I believed my interpretation to be correct, but I am relieved to learn that it isn't. :)

I have edited my offending post to distinguish my interpretation of what you said from what you actually said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jrshep
Stephen,

I don't get it. What's so inherently wrong with breaking an unjust law?

Wouldn't it be like lying or cheating a mobster who wants to take your money or your life? Is that inherently wrong also?

A lawful society is a value, but it is not a greater value than life or liberty.

I remembered that Gary Hull had addressed this issue, in part, in his five hour lecture, "An Introduction to Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand," available (no charge) from ARI ( http://www.aynrand.org/academic/b_opar.html ), so I spent the time listening again to this lecture to see if I could find it.

In the third (final) lecture, towards the very end (1:47:30), he says (if I transcribed it accurately, and I believe that I did):

"One could argue that it would be perfectly honest and moral, according to the Objectivist Ethics, to lie through your teeth on your income tax return. Not that I am publicly advising people to do so, but one could make that argument. Because that…the IRS is nothing but legalized theft." (And he has more of interest which he adds.)

The immediate context for that quote is a question on the contextual nature of absolutes which begins at about 1:43:46.

I recommend listening to the entire lecture. (As I said, there's no charge, but you will have to register first, and you will need RealAudio's player.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

i agree with those who're say immigrating here illegally is not immoral. as has been said before, everyone does have the right to pursue happiness and the right to reach their dreams and goals. i've always thought of the United States as a country partly built on the backs of immigrants...and that it is one the reasons why this country has been so successful. immigrants as a whole don't come to united states thinking "oh great here's a country i can go to to exploit its welfare system". for both illegal and legal immigrants the financial and emotional costs are high -to just get up and go and leave the rest of your family behind or to bribe officials, pay plane tickets, pay coyotes,etc. but they wouldn't do it if their desire was not great. the passage illegal immigrants have is a perilous one that for many ends in death. NOBODY in their right mind would do it unless they were that desperate for work and a better life for their families. in a way, the united states is really lucky for all the immigrants its attracted. it filters out the moochers of the world...who stay in their socialist governments...and only attracts those who actually see the great benefits of capitalism. myself included ...as i am an immigrant and proud citizen of this country.

p.s. i am against all forms of socialism...including welfare...and would be quite happy to see it eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... the united states is really lucky for all the immigrants its attracted. it filters out the moochers of the world...who stay in their socialist governments...and only attracts those who actually see the great benefits of capitalism.  myself included ...as i am an immigrant and proud citizen of this country.

p.s. i am against all forms of socialism...including welfare...and would be quite happy to see it eliminated.

The irony is that our welfare state has made immigration essential in certain fields, most notably health care. Increasing gov't encroachment in health care has made the field increasingly unattractive to the "best and the brightest" and the most ambitious of Americans as it was in years past, requiring us more and more to depend on immigrants to fill in the gaps.

How much of our welfare system would be additionally "burdened" by immigrants who presumptively wouldn't be contributing to it is questionable in my mind. Even in the early years, immigrants were not only considered entitled to public education (not to mention other basic services such as police protection) but it was considered desirable - under the principle of the "melting pot" - to give it to them. Today admittedly they are "entitled" to much more, so there may be a legitimate concern there. But I strongly doubt the merit of the argument when weighed against the enormous benefit we would experience from a major influx of immigrants eager to work hard and succeed.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The politically correct attitude is to pretend they don’t exist, that numerous laws are not being flagrantly violated. For some reason it is considered kind and compassionate to condemn illegal aliens to a life as fugitives. Their undocumented status means that they can’t get decent jobs, nor can they complain to authorities when unscrupulous employers treat them with cruelty or cheat them of their pay.

What possible reason could the Democrats have for encouraging illegal immigration? It is a well-known dirty secret that the Democrat Party has done everything in its power to sabotage any attempt at voter reform. They have fought hard against any attempt to verify the legal status of voters at the polls. This is because the vast majority of the people ineligible to vote by law, including convicted felons and illegal immigrants, vote Democrat. The Democrats have pressured the welfare system to include illegal immigrants and incarcerated felons on welfare rolls, in violation of federal and state laws. It is no wonder that these illegals reward the Party that caters to them.

I find it much harder to understand why President Bush is encouraging illegal immigration by proposing amnesty for all illegals. This has already been done. When the last national amnesty was declared by Congress for three million illegals in 1986, it was supposed to have solved the problem of illegal immigration. Now the number of illegal aliens is back in the millions again. Instead of solving the problem, amnesty encouraged even more illegals to cross our borders. They saw their brothers rewarded for breaking our laws. Now some pinhead in the administration is advising Bush to take the same ill-advised action. What is the definition of insanity? "Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result the next time."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between ILLEGAL ALIENS and IMMIGRANTS. Immigrants

move here, work here, stay here, along with there monies and investment in

our american culture. Illegal aliens on the other hand come here and work

illegally, have no intention of contributing, and send there money back to wherever

it is they come from. Many are politically motivated by their own governments

such as MEXICO. The Mexican government has for decades supported the

colonias inside our borders of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. And

we are turning these illegal "towns" of cardboard boxes into a new welfare

state.

How is this good for the illegal aliens (or immigrants, if you are so bold

to call them that) or the tax paying citizens who support them?

Many of these "Colonias" produce desperate situations that encourage criminal

behaviour.

Has anyone looked at the amount of murders committed by these "immigrants"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...When the last national amnesty was declared by Congress for three million illegals in 1986, it was supposed to have solved the problem of illegal immigration...

The only "problem" of illegal immigration, is that immigration is illegal. Have you even read the rest of this thread? Either way, I'd like to hear your argument that these millions of "illegals" pose any actual problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this good for the illegal aliens (or immigrants, if you are so bold to call them that) or the tax paying citizens who support them?

How is it not good for immigrants to leave their countries and come to America? And then how are immigrants, as such, bad for legal residents of the country? If there is a problem with tax paying citizens having to support "them," then isn't that a problem with the welfare state and not with immigration qua immigration? How is it any worse for some of my forcefully confiscated money to be given to a Mexican bum rather than an American bum?

Has anyone looked at the amount of murders committed by these "immigrants"?

How is proposing to punish entire populations for the actions of a few individuals not racist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
There is no provision in the United States Constitution -- nor should there be -- that its citizens are only required to obey those laws which they like. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not.
Do forgive me for not reading all of the posts in this forum. As Ayn Rand once said a constitution delimits the power of the government. It is not a manual, so to speak for everyday citizens on how to live their lives. From my understanding Rand said that one should not be a martyr whereas disobeying an immoral law is concerned. Objectivism (to my understanding) does not require one to obey immoral laws. If a law forbids me from performing a certain sex act with my wife or anyone for that matter should I obey it just because some bureaucrat-mystic and his like said so? If citizens should obey every dumb law why are they allowed to bear arms?

"The government was set to protect man from criminals -- and the

Constitution was written to protect man from the government. The Bill

of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the

government -- as an explicit declaration that individual rights

supersede any public or social power."

  - Ayn Rand

I concur with the cogent words of Ayn Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing you as an individual should care about is whether the country you live in upholds your rights and lets you pursue your goals. If it does, you shouldn't care how many people immigrate. *If* you live in a constitutional republic.

If you live in a democracy like the U.S. then you should care about immigration, because you live in a system of majority rule.

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...