RoR: Forum

James, I was moved by your passion and compassion and I agree that those conditions should never exist. I expect, then , that you will be an advocate of the capitalist society I presented in:

http://solohq.com/Articles/Hibbert/Cutting_the_Gordian_Knot_-_A_Hypothetical_Press_Conference_with_Donald_Trump.shtml

which addresses all those problems.

Sam

Post 1

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 5:25pm

God damn to hell those bastards who would make another's life hell on this earth in order only to give vent to their own xenophobia and collectivism.

And Galt bless you, James, for your own words.

As the borders have closed and xenophobia has increased, those poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free have been forgotten. Time to lift the lamp once more beside the golden door.

Cheers.

(Edited by Peter Cresswell on 8/04, 5:35pm)

(Edited by Peter Cresswell on 8/04, 5:36pm)

Post 2

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 6:54pm

Sam
I am an advocate of that capitalist society, but I think you have a better chance of making the 2 billion yourself than getting Trump to make that much sense in our lifetimes. Are you aware of the free state project that is trying to get 5,000 liberty lovers to move to New Hampshire and "make the difference" ? One look at the coastal town of Portsmouth, and you might move there even if Jane Fonda becomes govenor.

Post 3

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 7:04pm

I am seriously interested in putting together a book on immigration that emphasizes the human costs that stupid laws inflict. I thank you for emotional support.
After reading your background here on Solo, I think our friends will probably work hard to keep us from meeting, as they probably wouldn't be able to stand the imevitable Wagner Ring Festivals that would be the result of that meeting.
Heil, der Sonne! Heil, der Licht!

Post 4

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 9:11pm

Along with Alfredo, do we also welcome these gentlemen?

Marwan Al-Shehhi, Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad, Ahmed Alghamdi, Hamza Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Khalid Almihdhar, Majed Moqed, Salem Alhazmi, Nawaf Alhazmi, Hani Hanjour, Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi, Ahmed Alnami, Ziad Samir Jarrah, Satam M.A. Al Suqami, Waleed M. Alshehri, Wail M. Alshehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari.

If not, why not?

I am in total sympathy with Alfredo, and would no doubt have done the very same thing he has done, if I were not born in this country. But the reality is, he has broken the laws of a very powerful government, and fighting government and surviving is a feat in itself.

There is also something a bit disturbing about the fact that all these people who only want to improve their lives by coming to the United States, do little or nothing about what is wrong in the countries they came from. How come?

Regi

Post 5

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 10:08pm

Regi,

The terrorists you listed were helped more than hindered by our current immigration system. That system creates market demand for professional-quality production of fake documents, creates widespread willingness to hide undocumented people from immigration enforcers, and corrupts the law-enforcement system when innocent people have no shield against official abuse other than bribery. The terrorists' "achievement" would have been much less feasable without those results of the immigration control system. But you can trust the politicians to give us, in Ayn Rand's words, "poison as food" - and now, after the attacks, "poison as antidote."

As for the claim that immigrants "do little or nothing about what is wrong in the countries they came from," that's total bullshit. When I was on the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research, I helped several graduate students from then-Communist Poland come here and study, not only in my field but also in Economics and in Political Science. Some of them learned English from copies of Rand's novels that I gave them. And now some of them are running the country now.

Post 6

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 10:55pm

James, absolutely beautiful. Your article sings with reasoned passion and is written superbly. It brought tears to my eyes. I hope lots of people read it.

Regi: I disagree with the implicit reprimand you give people such as Alfredo for purportedly not doing anything to improve their countries of birth. The best thing to do with hellholes that have been hellholes since their existence and are cesspools of corruption and bureaucracy is to run from them. While there is a freer place to go, go there and let the cesspool rot in it's own juices- the sooner the better. Alfredo was born in Mexico through accident of location and has no moral obligation to waste his life fixing that mess. I assume (of course, I don't know) that his priority would have been to bring his family to America if he could, or make their existence comfortable in Mexico- THAT is what he seem to me to be a more moral objective (once again, I do not know the nature of his relationship with his family, so am making value assumptions).

And Regi, I agree with your (once again implicit) condemnation of the immigration crackdown on Arab sounding names. Though I am was and will be in favour of the Iraq intervention, there is a lot wrong with some police-state abrogations of basic civil rights. America deserves support for their courageous stand against militant Islam (even if they don't call it that), but must redouble efforts to ensure vast breaches to basic rights are kept minimal, temporary and able to be challenged in courts of laws. It is a fine line.

Post 7

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 11:21pm

"There is also something a bit disturbing about the fact that all these people who only want to improve their lives by coming to the United States, do little or nothing about what is wrong in the countries they came from. How come?"

you might as well condemn one of the shruggers for "doing little or nothing about the world he came from" instead of fleeing from it.

Post 8

Thursday, August 5, 2004 - 2:53am

Wow. What an absolutely stunning article. When in Korea I met many Filipinos (my partner is one) who are very similar to the Mexicans in their plight. Years of corrupt politics has left a devastated economy whose people flee overseas to work twelve hour days. The remittances they send back are all that keeps their own country's economy going, not to mention their families. They have ambitions and dreams of their own. And they remain in high spirits and rarely complain. James, your article is the most beautiful salute to these people our societies too often scorn and our states outlaw, and I thank you for it.

Post 9

Thursday, August 5, 2004 - 3:04am

Mr. Firehammer wrote:

There is also something a bit disturbing about the fact that all these people who only want to improve their lives by coming to the United States, do little or nothing about what is wrong in the countries they came from. How come?

Reginald: You claim you're in "total sympathy" with Alfredo's predicament & then contradict yourself with the comments above. I take it you disapprove of Rand's decision to flee her (Soviet) hellhole as well? I'm reminded of her retort to the pro-Roosevelt heckler who was criticising her for being "foreign":

"At least I am an American by choice. What have you ever done except be born here?" (Or words to that effect.)

Alfredo is also an American by choice, & I'm certain he cherishes his adopted country in ways that many of Regi's "legitimate" Americans could never comprehend. James has my heartfelt thanks for drawing attention to this man's plight in his magnificent essay.

(Edited in the spirit of cutting Regi some slack, as suggested by Linz below.)

(Edited by Derek McGovern on 8/05, 5:49am)

Post 10

Thursday, August 5, 2004 - 3:24am

My condolences to your friend, James.
-------------------
Of course, I'm not too keen on our current immigration laws, but with the accompanying social "safety nets" in America, I nearly cringe for every new person that steps off a boat or treks across a desert, "legally" or not. Every newborn, apart from being a bundle of adorable joy, is also a possible "societal burden" to be cared for and coddled till they're old enough to vote, or fight in our wars (but not drink a beer) or hopefully start up in one of our publicly-funded universities. Hehe....I have a hard time enjoying the knowledge that more of my money might eventually be pulled from my pocket and siphoned into the mouths of anyone who hasn't earned it---"legal" citizen or not. The fact that our government still steals money from us might be the only valid argument against completely open borders...then again, our government would certainly find some other way to spend that money. <sigh>

(Edited by Jeremy on 8/05, 3:28am)

Post 11

Thursday, August 5, 2004 - 4:09am

Derek - don't worry too much about Regi. He spends half his time saying it's a waste of time trying to change things & the other half criticising folk for *not* trying to change things (in their own countries in this instance). He's a contrarian old phart, an attention-seeker masquerading as an autonomist. But he has his redeeming pheatures. He smokes, phor one thing. So cut him a bit of slack. I do ... eh, Regi?? Hahaha!

I'm delighted that James Kilbourne is upping his contributions here. *He* is definitely one of SOLO's Band of Brothers.

Linz

Post 12

Thursday, August 5, 2004 - 6:01am

Linz, and all others,

Ah that's better. Now I'm being talked about.

He spends half his time saying it's a waste of time trying to change things & the other half criticising folk for *not* trying to change things (in their own countries in this instance).

You are right. I was not specific and made the mistake of assuming SOLOites would be intelligent enough to figure out the difference between the Alfredos of the world, (who acting in their own self-interest, not as reformers) are an "improvement" to their own countries, and the much larger percentage of illegal immigrants who contribute nothing of value in their own country or ours.

My point was only that not everyone who immigrates to the United States is an Alfredo and many are Mohamed Attas. The number of hardened criminals in the United States who are also illegal immigrants is staggering. Everyone who immigrates to the US is seeking to improve their own lives, but only a few seek to do it by being producers like Alfredo.

What I should have said is disturbing is many of those who come to this country are attempting to escape the mess they made of their own countries and are bringing here the same collectivist or criminal mindsets the Alfredos come here to escape.

I regard those who come to this country to rob its citizens or promote terrorism as invaders, one of the two things a legitimate government is meant to protect us from. Though worse than poorly written and executed, immigration laws are meant to protect us from foreign invaders, and an illegal immigrant, until proven otherwise, has invaded this country.

Peter: "God damn to hell those bastards who would make another's life hell ...," including those who have done it to their own countries and are now coming to make a hell out of ours.

Adam: "As for the claim that immigrants "do little ...." The term is illegal immigrants.

David: "I disagree with the implicit reprimand you give people such as Alfredo for purportedly not doing anything to improve their countries of birth." Then I'll make it explicit. People want to escape the oppressive governments those same people originally produced. They haven't changed their ideas. They just want to come to this country to do the same thing. No thanks!

"And Regi, I agree with your (once again implicit) condemnation of the immigration crackdown on Arab sounding names." You do not know the difference between Arab and Muslim, apparently. That list of names is a list of Muslim terrorists.

Robert: "you might as well condemn one of the shruggers for "doing little or nothing about the world he came from" instead of fleeing from it." They were doing something.

Derek: "I take it you disapprove of Rand's decision to flee her (Soviet) hellhole as well?"

Ayn Rand was not an illegal immigrant. Ayn Rand came here with a better philosophy and more to contribute than most who are born here. What has that got to do with all the lice and leaches who come here for no other reason than to spoil this country as they have their own. Ayn Rand did not come here with a "sad story" about how tough she had it and everyone just owed her help because it was not her fault she wasn't born here.

Jeremy: Yes.

Everybody has a sad story. Every one of those illegal immigrants who come here for the purpose of enjoying unearned benefit (or worse) all have sad stories. I am not surprised when the bleeding heart liberals fall all over themselves, wringing their hands over the plight of the poor illegal immigrants. What I don't understand is Objectivists who think just anyone with any intention ought to be allowed to invade this country, so long as they have a sad story.

Cameron, please read

Invasion, How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores, by the lovely ( Filipino ) Michelle Malkin .

Regi

Post 13

Thursday, August 5, 2004 - 12:55pm

I thank you all for the lively discussion. At its core, we have here a band of brothers, indeed. As usual, some of you have answered others of you before I could say a word, and better than I would have said it.
Regi, you would be invited to about half my dinner parties, but it might well be that they would be the most interesting half; at least for the survivors. But, coming from Hollywood, I must ask, "Is Firehammer your stage name?"
As to the problem of terrorists, it seems to me to be divorced from immigration. There are plenty of native terrorists. I do believe that a country has a right to know who is within its borders, one of a handful of changes I have made to my political positions which, along with preemptive attacks, undoubtedly will upset many people. But before we get down to the nitty-gritty on terrorists, I hope that we can all agree what to do with them whereever we do find them.
I say string 'em up, or, at the very least, stop voting for them.

Post 14

Thursday, August 5, 2004 - 9:48am

It's the personal contribution each and everyone can make to his own welfare (and possible to the welfare of others in fair trade) - no matter whether they are the Abdullahs or Alfredos of our worlds. Pity is, though, that this our beautiful world does not evaluate on the basis of personal ability/achievement/freedom, but on the basis of groups/races/religions/whatnot.
This article praises the individual contribution of one man - to himself and to others! It rightfully rages at the disregard for this one personal individual, the destruction of his achievements, his broken dreams.
No better way to get to a world where we can all be judged by our own being, based on individual rights, not which 'pidgeonhole' we fit in ... all the nitpicking going on about immigrants and their dangers/burdens to 'your beloved country' are just that: nitpicking!
This article does not talk about immigrants or terrorists or coloureds - it talks about Alfredo, the person, the father, the friend, the enterpreneur ...
Unsplit the issue and you have no need to deal with it's unsolvable contradictions ...
VSD

Post 15

Thursday, August 5, 2004 - 4:34pm

"Galt bless you"--I absolutely love that! Is that your invention, Peter? If so, I thank you. It's my new expression of benevolence.

Galt bless you, James. And Galt bless you, Alfredo.

Post 16

Friday, August 6, 2004 - 7:18pm

I believe the best formulation of the correct position on immigration is that used on The World's Smallest Political Quiz: Let peaceful people cross borders freely.

The alternative position was well symbolised a few years ago by the boatload of 460 so refugees heading for Australia who were rescued by the ship 'Tampa' and then left in limbo in the Arafura Sea while politicians pontificated and Australians screamed murder. John Howard's xenophobic treatment of these people won him an election, and found many Australians saying that the ship should be sunk by the Australian navy. Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

At the time I wrote a piece describing the reasons for my disgust - as it is no longer online and I believe it relevant to this discussion, I ask your indulgence to post it here.

Cheers.

Bloodstains on the Refugee Red Carpet

Some years ago a ship loaded with contaminated rubbish set sail from Philadelphia. It was refused access at every port and, like a modern-day Flying Dutchman, the globe-wandering ship seemed destined to roam the seas forever. Like that wretched refuse-ship we have just seen another unwanted cargo floating off the north-west coat of Australia - this time, a human cargo.

For eight days 460 rescued Afghani refugees lay on the Norwegian ship Tampa, after the Australian Air Force spotted their sinking boat limping away from Indonesia. Norway, Indonesia, and Australia refused them entry however, and Afghanistan's Taliban offered the refugees no charity should they return. The refugees threatened to jump into shark-infested waters off Australia's Christmas Island should the Tampa turn about. Australia's 'humanitarian' response was to place SAS commandos on the ship to force it away from Australian soil.

Nobody wanted these 460 refugees. Many wished they would just 'go away,' blanking out the reality that the only place for them to go was to die. Helen Clark eventually offered to take 150, who are now accused of 'queue jumping.' There is still no welcome mat out for the other 310, or for other refugees around the world.

People everywhere risk their lives to escape their impossible existences, and all around the world the barriers to them are up. People-smugglers 'assist' them, and the victims they smuggle are so desperate they submit to the risks, and the price-gouging. Victims like the 58 'illegal' Chinese immigrants who were ejected from Belgium last year, only to be suffocated in the back of an airtight, hermetically sealed truck at Dover - dying like so much unwanted cattle.

How bad are people's lives that they risk suffocation, drowning and shark attacks to escape the horrors of their former homes? And what of our culture, our politicians, and ourselves when 460 homeless people risk their lives in this way, and we condemn them to die for having the temerity to interrupt our own comfortable lives?

Many Australasians no longer value other human beings it seems - they are just so many problems they wish would go away. Wherefore this new inhumanity? I submit that the Welfare State mentality is responsible - New Zealanders who wish that the Tampa refugees would just 'go away' expose the dark underbelly at the heart of the Welfare State.

"How so?' you ask. "Isn't the Welfare State a model of benevolent charity?" It is not. The Welfare State is not voluntary charity, it is based on compulsion, forcing every person to be responsible for every other person whether they like it or not. And like it or not, those who pick up the cheque for New Zealand's welfare state resent that forced imposition.

By its nature, the Welfare State dehumanises people - viewing them as just a wallet or a mouth - and the people with the wallets are naturally upset at the prospect of many more mouths being fed at their expense. So, for eight days, the dehumanising moral bankruptcy at the heart of the Welfare State lay exposed on that container ship floating off Christmas Island, and the Welfare State earned a new symbol: Australian commandos pointing guns at sick women and children.

There is a better way to deal with immigrants and refugees. Libertarians have always maintained that peaceful people should be able to cross borders freely as long as they forswear any claim on any existing welfare state - I suggest that this philosophy of libertarian self-responsibility offers a simple solution to the current impasse.

New Zealand currently accepts 750 refugees annually, housing them, feeding them, and watering them - nannying them - to ready them for New Zealand life. Most refugees have already shown sufficient gumption to escape the horrors of their own homes, and most immigrants quickly demonstrate that such nannying is unnecessary by achieving spectacular success in their new land.

So why this enforced imposition on the taxpayer and the immigrants? It's as if the government fears we might pick up diseases from them - 'diseases' perhaps like the hard work, enterprise, and initiative that successful immigrants so frequently display. To be sure, we must bar known criminals and terrorists, but that doesn’t necessitate such overly expensive and bureaucratic immigration procedures.

I say, why not simply let people look after them voluntarily? Many charitable New Zealanders and Australians are calling for the Tampa refugees to be allowed in, so why not answer their calls literally? I suggest the easiest solution is for John Howard and Helen Clark to announce that between them they will accept all 460, but only as long as 460 charitable Australians and New Zealanders can be found to take full responsibility for them until they are on their feet - 460 people who will offer their own voluntary welfare and 'naturalisation services' to help these people start their new life. Who could object to that?

Finding 460 should not be a problem, and with the initiative the refugees have already shown in getting to Christmas Island, I would expect that getting on their feet will not take them very long.

This solution demonstrates the simple benevolence at the heart of the libertarian philosophy. Compulsory 'charity' is a misnomer - it dehumanises both taxpayer and recipient, but when charity is voluntary, people are set free to be benevolent again.

The Welfare State is a killer for open immigration, and a killer for many immigrants and for refugees thrown into the hands of unscrupulous people-smugglers. I call on Helen Clark to set these boat people free through the generosity of benevolent New Zealanders - not through tax-paid welfare - and I suggest she and other New Zealanders begin to take a good hard look at what the welfare state does to people.

And I suggest that the simple libertarian philosophy be adopted with all immigrants: that we allow all peaceful people to pass freely just as long as they make no claim on the welfare state. Until it is dismantled, that is.

Peter Cresswell is an Auckland architect, and leader of the Libertarianz party.

11 Castle Drive, Epsom

(09) 631 0034

organon@ihug.co.nz

Post 17

Friday, August 6, 2004 - 7:20pm

Rodney asked: '"Galt bless you"--I absolutely love that! Is that your invention, Peter? If so, I thank you.'

You can thank me if you like, but I'm really not sure if it's my invention or not. Feel free to use it at will however, Rodney, and Galt bless you for asking. :-)

Post 18

Friday, August 6, 2004 - 8:09pm

Peter -I love this article and think you are onto something with your simple, libertarian answer to immigration; private sponsorship. May I contact you directly about a book idea I have on this subject?
BTW, your article on E Lucevan le Stelle and Lanza is great. I have one of my several articles on Lanza on this site., if you are interested. Also, I just wrote one on Gigli that I might submit. I am also thinking of a book on Puccini from the layperson's perspective.

Post 19

Friday, August 6, 2004 - 8:47pm