RoR: Forum

Bravo brother, bravo. It is unimagineable to me that so many qualified, and capable people are not allowed in this country to work and be productive. We have U.S. born men and women who would rather stand on street corners and freeway offramps, and beg for my hard earned dollars than go to work everyday and earn it the same way I do. Then we as Americans have the nerve to place judgement on people who come here and want to be productive, and make better lives for themselves, and their families.
There is something foul in that way of thinking.
The problem we have now is not the massive amount of Mexicans coming into America. It is the massive amount of dead beat Americans we have in America.

Post 1

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 6:07am

Merely presenting statistics is not collectivism. If it were, most of us would be collectivists.

The following are quotes from the Ayn Rand Lexicon under the entry collectivism:
- Collectivism means the subjegation of the individual to a group.
- Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group.
- The philosophy of collectivism upholds the existence of a mystic (and imperceivable) social organism, while denying the reality of the perceived individuals.

Another collectivist idea is that the characteristics of an individual are like the average characteristics of the group to which he or she belongs.

I find none of these manifestations of collectivism in the cited Soundings section of the Navigator. The only apparent purpose in the article is that "Mexican immigrants do not move into mainstream American society as rapidly as do other immigrants." Maybe there was an unstated purpose, but without evidence I shall refrain from jumping to Adam Reed's conclusion that the purpose was propaganda for racist limits on Mexican immigration into the U.S. Maybe the TOC staff on this forum can comment. If I thought like Adam, I could jump to the conclusion that he supports the welfare laws and practices that grant immigrants unearned entitlements.

Post 2

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 7:05am

If this were not a welfare state, you would be correct Adam, immigration, in a perfect world, should not be restricted.

Post 3

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 8:18am

Without going into the pros and cons of various immigration policies, the way I read the stats listed they may have been trying to make a point about Mexican culture. I.e. they may have been citing these statistics to suggest that Mexican culture discourages certain pro-reason, pro-productivity practices, in contra-distinction to other (Hispanic, in this case) cultures. If that interpretation is correct, they are (implicitly) arguing against collectivism -- the cause of such cultural influences -- and in favor of more individualism.

As another poster said, there isn't enough in the quoted portion to judge.

Post 4

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 8:57am

Adam is mostly right about this. (See below for the exception.) I followed the link and read the original article and to me, the thrust was against Mexican immigration. Also, the "Soundings" displayed what I accepted as the usual conservative generalities and underpinnings.

Considering that 20% of all Americans live in California, what is "the mainstream"?

The counter-example of a Bulgarian in Billings, Montana, was disingenuous. We have a small Hungarian community here in Ann Arbor and I attend Hungarian movies every other Sunday. We also have a very active Greek community which actually funds two chairs in Modern Greek in the University of Michigan classics department. You could open a real can of worms by asking just why it is that we speak of "assimilated Jews." There are many ethnic communities in America and many other "ex-pat" communities all around the world. The "Outland Chinese" are perhaps the paradigm. Therefore, I judge this "Soundings" piece as xenophobia.

[Why not focus on the intellectually, (and, perhaps now, genetically) inbred population of governmentalists in Washington DC? Maybe America would be better off if Washington DC were sealed against emigration. Once a Congressman or colonel goes there, he never comes back to bother anyone. Oh, but wait, the Objectivist Center is there... and the Libertarian Party.... hmmm... what does that tell you?]

Santa Fe was founded in 1610, Albuquerque in 1706. It is a bit of a stretch to demand that "those people" enter the "mainstream" of "our culture." The Spanish Borderland Frontier (see the works of Herbert Bolton and John Francis Bannon) was different from, older than, and in many ways similar to, the westward frontier of the Anglos. The Spanish lost their original settlements in 1680 during the Pueblo Rebellion. It is not so much why they lost them, but how they hung on for so long. For 100 years, the colonial governors had exerted constant pressure on the settlers to group together, to live in forts, to be be protected by the army. The colonists kept spreading out and fending for themselves. You have these classic cases where the Indians raid and run and draw the men away on a foray, then the Indians attack the "undefended" haciendas where they are met by women wielding halberds. The frontier makes its own demands.

These are not Mexican "immigrants" coming into "our" country. These are people moving around, inside theirs. On a flight to NYC from Albuquerque, I met an educator who had worked in Montana and she was somewhat miffed that the native Americans do not recognize the Canadian border and take rifles into a country with gun control laws.

Of course, I am prejudiced because I have lived in New Mexico. Also, my father's side of the family arrived "without passport." They were WOPs. So, to me, immigration laws are obviously unworkable.

If statistical percentages of educations and incomes were any kind of a standard, then only Jews and Chinese should be allowed to vote.

Closing: where I disagree with Adam. I am not sure that "we" should close "our" borders to anyone. You never know why someone is wanted by the law someplace else and with official inquiries and such, all you get is some government's side of it.

Post 5

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 9:05am

On the other hand, I got the implication that Mexicans in general do NOT want to learn English and merge into the culture of the northern neighbors, yet wish to gain all the then unearned benefits...

Post 6

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 9:09am

Jeff,

Like much of what appears in "Objectivist Center" publications, what sees print is often the intellectual equivalent of innuendo. Anti-individualist propaganda is not stated openly, only implied, maintaining "deniability" even while joining the collectivist chorus. I cannot imagine any reason to print those statistics that would both make sense from a Randian perspective, and not be fit to print as a brief explanation with what was printed. I do hope that someone from the OC, preferably whoever made the decision to print this (and therefore must have considered the issue important enough to join the Conservative chorus on, if not actually to think about) will comment here.

Post 7

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 9:09am

Jeff, your idea is plausible. An article by Bruce Thornton in The New Individualist is about multiculturalism and immigration. Multiculturalism, of course, has strains of collectivism, group identity, and anti-individualism. This was in the July, 2005 print version, and put on TOC's website 11/8/2005. However, the statistics piece was in the Navigator about a year ago. So the later article provides weak support for the earlier piece.

Post 8

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 10:15am

From (November 10, 2005) "Multiculturalism and Its Discontents" by Bruce S. Thornton, in "The New Individualist:"

"The schools and government must commit to teaching and reinforcing the common culture that immigrants must learn and accept to be Americans..."

"New," perhaps. "Individualist?" Not in a thousand years...

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 11/21, 10:29am)

Post 9

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 10:16am

Dr. Reed religiously chants the mantra, "Context matters." In fact he uses that statement in his signature line in his e-mails. (Or at least he used to when we corresponded.) Yet he takes one cultural noting presenting statistics about assimilation of recent Mexican immigrants which appeared almost a year ago, and accuses The Objectivist Center of racism and treason. Context indeed. This "Sounding" was placed in Navigator by its former editor. Note that Reed doesn't challenge the statistics. The proper interpretation of it is simply that Mexican immigrants aren't assimilating at the same rate as other immigrants. Period. It is not a call to close borders.

The piece that Merlin Jetton mentions in the most recent edition of The New Individualist does not call for closing borders. Its author Bruce Thornton endorses immigration, and merely calls for more cultural assimilation.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/bthornton_multiculturalism-discontents.asp

The Objectivist Center has regularly and repeatedly championed open borders, but with conditions. Reed calls for the same thing in his article with screening of terrorists and criminals among others. David Kelley called for open borders as early as 1985 in a Barron's editorial in response to the Simpson-Mazzoli bill. Ed Hudgins is posting a separate listing of many articles which he and others at TOC have taken anti-racist and anti-collectivist positions.

SOLO readers should peruse those articles and decide for themselves.

Post 10

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 10:40am

Bill,

I asked, "why give scarce space in print to those specific statistics?" You wrote a long posting that still blanks out on that question. My hypothesis is that it was to join the racist anti-immigration chorus, even while "maintaining deniability." Your post is an exercise in maintaining deniability. The "sounding" was silent about the implications one is supposed to draw from those statistics, in the manner of intellectual innuendo. Thornton (see my post above) at least says what he means, although why the so-called "Objectivist Center" should endorse his views is still a mystery. What is your excuse? And what is your "reason?"

Post 11

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 10:45am

Adam Reed again gives us one his typical, intellectually dishonest posts. This is why his posts should be taken with a dump-truck full of salt. He digs up an old Navigator, quotes the statistics from the "Soundings" section, doesn't question them but jumps to the unwarranted conclusion that we at TOC are collectivists or racists.

Note that he ignores all of the articles and op-eds we at TOC have published directly rejecting racist collectivism. As evidence of his sins of omission, here are a few of the pieces he ignores:

Kelley on diversity:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/text/dkelley_ban-racism-not-discrimination.asp?navigator

Me on native Hawaiian racism:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/text/ehudgins_fascism-in-a-lei.asp?mc

Me on Martin Luther King:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/ehudgins_character-color.asp

Me on racism:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/text/ehudgins_rff-black-like-me.asp?mc

and

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/text/ehudgins_rff-racist-cookies-colleges-quarterbacks.asp?mc

and

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/text/ehudgins_rff-affirmative-action-decision.asp?mc

Me on individualism:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/text/ehudgins_rff-affirmative-action-decision.asp?mc

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/text/ehudgins_new-individualism.asp?navigator

Me on collectivism:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/text/ehudgins_frances-killer-collectivism.asp?mc

Me on the deeper issue of collective identity:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/text/ehudgins_new-individualism.asp?navigator

Bruce Thornton on multiculturalism:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/text/bthornton_multiculturalism-discontents.asp?

Reed might have missed my Cato piece in praise of immigrants, (focusing on my Italian grandfather!) so FYI:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/7-03-98.html

I list these pieces, most of which Reed should be well aware of, because each illustrates the disingenuous nature of his charges.

While Adam's not always wrong, it would be wrong, given his track record and pattern of distortions, to not take -- or waste -- time to dig deeper into his posts.

Let's just remember his most recent silliness where he posted a photo and bio of someone with whom he disagreed, presumably to discredit them, but the photo and bio were about the WRONG person! And remember that he maintained on SOLO that his own daughter was a lesbian, which she herself denied.

If Adam or others want to have a discussion about open borders versus legitimate security concerns, how to deal with immigration in light of welfare state, or problems of enculturation, fine. If someone asks why, last year, Roger Donway -- no longer our editor, by the way -- listed these facts in the "Soundings," which is meant to present interesting cultural tidbits that might stimulate thought or discussion, fine as well. And in future New Individualists we won't just present party line pronouncements but will want some back-and-forth and point-counter-count on issues from individuals coming from individualist premises. (David Kelley will probably be responding to a forthcoming Bruce Thornton piece.)

But it's a mark of a disingenuous approach that without anything that can be called objective evidence, and completely out of the context of all the material we have published on this subject, that Adam he proceeds to call us collectivists and put our Objectivist name in quotes.

I'll sit back now and watch other SOLOists take him apart, as they've done on so many of his other silly statements, or perhaps start another "What's wrong with Adam Reed?" thread. I enjoy the intellectual exchanges, humor and passion on SOLO and hope others spend their time on such things and ignore Reed's troll-like rants.

Post 12

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 11:17am

Ed,

I will follow Ayn Rand's practice and NOT respond to personal attacks. Full-bore maintenance of deniability is to be expected.

But there is the still unanswered question, even after these very long exercises: What was it that made those specific statistics, specifically about Mexican immigrants, so "interesting" in the supposedly "individualist" context of a TOC publication? And what can possibly justify Thornton's demand - in view of your posting yet another link to his article - that (specifically) the government "must commit to teaching and reinforcing the common culture that immigrants must learn and accept to be Americans..." So, is TOC endorsing the idea that it is a proper function of government to engage in "social engineering" by "reinforcing the common culture?" And if not, why was Thornton's piece published without so much as a minimal disclaimer?

Post 13

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 11:38am

We all know that immigration ought to be allowed.

It is every human being's right to chase after prosperity wherever they think it lies.

But what happens when new immigrant communities remain so insular that they do NOT assimilate into a culture of freedom, capitalism and democracy? What happens to the open-borders country when the immigrants begin to comprise a major population segment?

WHat happens? The US becomes a communist hellhole, or a fascist state. The exact state that the immigrant ran from in the first place. They bring more than their physical bodies here--they bring their ideas. If their minds are not trained to seek out and revere knowlege, they will stick what they have always believed--usually collectivist/communist doma.

What happens? The North African and Muslim immigrant violence in France happens, that's what.

What happens? The free immigration policy interferes with my ability to live freely, that's what.

Not every culture believes in freedom, freedom of speech, even the freedom to leave your enemies alive. Most world cultures do NOT. (Check out what happens in Africa or South America). To the extent that you are going to allow an open borders policy, there ought to be loyalty oaths, mandatory English classes, and every other invasive and culture-breaking assimilation system possible in place. And, yes, it should be part of the government, to the extent that you believe that a proper role of government is maintaining citizenship status and domestic relations with other countries.

If the war of ideas were exclusively or adequately won by pure free-market competition, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, and all countries would be democractic capitalistic nations. Give the brainwashed immigrants (and our uneducated students) and alternative.

Post 14

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 11:47am

Adam,

I'm with you on the overall question of immigration. With respect to the "Soundings" piece, I don't know enough of its context to comment on it.

Those of us who believe in open borders on principle, however, have not done the heavy lifting of explaining how the moral can be the practical in the current context of government-run schools, socialized medicine, flimsy voter ID checks at polling places, officially mandated multiculturalism, etc.

"Motor voter" laws permit legal immigrants who do not have citizenship and illegal immigrants to vote. EMTALA is bankrupting hospitals by demanding that emergency rooms provide free care to anyone who shows up. Our government schools are not teaching even rudimentary English, American history, or respect for the traditional American system of individual rights and representative government to native-born children, much less to children of immigrants who need them most. Much less teach specifically Objectivist values to anyone. Our prisons are flooded with illegal immigrants. How can one reconcile a call for open immigration with these facts? (Yes, of course you and I could go on all day giving anecdotes of individual immigrants who did assimilate into mainstream American culture, or who even went on to soar beyond it into Objectivist culture. But my point here is that governmental, educational, and cultural elites in this country officially and unofficially discourage any sort of pressure to assimilate being brought to bear on immigrants. And there does in fact remain a large element of poor, uneducated immigrants who have done and are doing almost nothing to assimilate.)

Of the 20 Spanish-speaking nations, only a handful have more inhabitants who are native speakers of Spanish than does the United States. So the U.S. is already a bilingual nation along the lines of Canada. If socialism advances here, it could easily degenerate into one along the lines of Belgium, with multiple, mutually hostile political factions representing each linguistic group.

If, otoh, we were to privatize the schools, remove compulsory service requirements from doctors, eliminate welfare and housing subsidies, and reform the voter registration laws, we could wipe out many abuses, stimulate the economy, and then open the borders without hearing the current objections. Oh, glad day! But every time an Objectivist wants to start a political movement to accomplish one or more of these things, other, perhaps more level-headed, Objectivists point out that "it is earlier than you think," and that a broad philosophical change must occur in the culture before we are ready for political activism.

How early is it? Well, let's suppose that it will take 2 generations of outreach before Objectivism is widely accepted and respected in the overall American English-speaking culture. If current trends continue, in 2 generations of Anglo whites there will be 3 generations of Hispanics (i.e. 3 large increases in population percentage, excluding future immigration, given that the birthrate among Hispanics in the US is high and that the birthrate of Anglos is only slightly higher than the replacement level.) If during that time legal and illegal immigration continue at status quo levels, or if we have open borders, large areas of the US will have Spanish-speaking majorities. So all the words of persuasion that have been written to spread Objectivism will have to be translated into Spanish, and we will essentially have to start over from scratch. So it is even earlier than those of us who think "it is earlier than we think" think. This is the ultimate motive of those who otherwise list themselves in the Objectivist camp but who call for effectively closed borders.

Of course the situation is not as grim as the last paragraph makes it appear. The great majority of Hispanic Americans are productive members of the working class, the professional class, or even the upper class. Assimilation is taking place at a fast rate despite the lack of "official" sanction of it. This is determined by the nature of reality, not by government fiat. Also, Mexicans and other Spanish speakers who move here are largely self-selected to desire a more entrepreneurially-oriented culture than that into which they were born. Thus, they are more likely to accept and to succeed in this culture than at first might appear. And there is an economic niche (actually, many niches) for them in our private-enterprise system. After all, we aren't the European Union.

-Bill

Edited for grammar. -B.

(Edited by William A. Nevin III on 11/21, 12:03pm)

Post 15

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 12:11pm

Bill,

Thank you for you comments. I guess I'll need to write a separate article about the fundamentals. Ayn Rand opposed "multiculturalism" from the perspective of a comprehensive Human Civilization. Conservatives oppose multiculturalism from the perspective of Christianity-centered, Europe-centered cultural chauvinism, under the label of "Western" Civilization. We both know that many of the most productive and successful people, at least in the scientific and technological fields we work in, have brought with them, into our comprehensive human civilization, contributions from non-Christian, non-European, non-"Western" cultures. The same is often true in the arts - as you have shown, for the case of Indian film, here on Solo.

I have a big problem, as Ayn Rand did, with "unprincipled alliances" - for example, just because we oppose "multiculturalism," is not a good reason for advocates of Human Civilization to make "common cause" with Conservative monocultural chauvinists. But you already knew that.

Post 16

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 12:26pm

Ed Hudgins wrote: "Note that he ignores all of the articles and op-eds we at TOC have published directly rejecting racist collectivism."

Well, yes, of course, but do you have any articles calling for open borders? I mean, by what stretch of the imagination does the government decide who comes and who goes? If they can keep one person out, then they can keep another person in and America becomes a prison with a very big yard.

I also join Adam Reed in rejecting the claim that it is the duty of government to acculturate immigrants. There is an established method whereby this is proper: the granting of citizenship. If you want to become an American citizen, you have to prove yourself. There are many ways. Taking classes in civics is one. My grandparents did that. My sister-in-law is a Brit who was naturalised as a US citizen. It was the same for her. Other than that, it is not the business of government to (1) define American culture and then (2) make sure that everyone adheres to it.

Serving in the armed forces is another way to prove your worthiness for citizenship. It is a hidden fact that many US soldiers are not yet citizens. This is an old tradition in America and I know several Europeans who fought their old cousins on behalf of their newly adopted nation -- my own uncle for one. I know other European immigrants who served in the 50s and 60s.

Noncitizen soldiers: the quandaries of foreign-born troops

By Patrik Jonsson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
USA > Military from the July 05, 2005 edition
RALEIGH, N.C. � Stuck in the Iraqi desert, fighting a war for a country not yet his, US Army Sgt. Leopoldo Escartin and other troops at Camp Dogwood hung a bit of home outside their desert-tan tent: the tricolor Mexican flag.
Making up about 7 percent of America's active fighting force, immigrants with green cards - Mexicans the largest group among them - are risking their lives not just for advancement within the Army, but for a leg up on the road to US citizenship.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0705/p01s03-usmi.html

Would the Objectivist Center care to salute these people?

On the other hand, would the Objectivist Center care to declaim against the National Anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance, both of which are primitive mysticist collectivist rituals?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/21, 12:45pm)

Post 17

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 12:58pm

SCOTT WROTE: "But what happens when new immigrant communities remain so insular that they do NOT assimilate into a culture of freedom, capitalism and democracy? What happens to the open-borders country when the immigrants begin to comprise a major population segment? WHat happens? The US becomes a communist hellhole, or a fascist state."

Oh please.
If America were truly capitalist, these would not be issues. The people streaming across the border would be coming here for their chance to live their dream, not to suck off the working people. Under a free society, anybody who came here seeking to disrupt it with communist or fascist ideals would find little or no audience, and certainly not enough political pull to interfere with the wheels of freedom. France is hardly a beacon of freedom and capitalism. The people rioting there feel entitled to whatever riches the French enjoy because France has built an entire culture of entitlement, not of individualism.

Post 18

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:04pm

This is in response to Dr. Reed's post #10. He says, "I asked 'why give scarce space in print to those specific statistics?'" I do not know why Roger Donway chose to do that, nor am I willing to speculate about his reasons. I did offer an interpretation, but that is mine alone. I did not blank out. I simply don't know why Roger Donway chose to place the item in the magazine. If I had been the editor I could have stated the reason for the placement of the item.

Reed seems to think that The Objectivist Center is a monolithic collective that takes "official positions." In fact it is a group of individuals. We differ about the application of the philosophy to a number of issues.

I do agree with Reed about his criticism of a portion of Bruce Thornton's article in his post #8 (which was posted while I was composing my previous post.) I have voiced similar concerns to Robert Bidinotto and Ed Hudgins. However, that was a signed article. The masthead of the magazine indicates, "Signed articles reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the center's staff or trustees."

Post 19

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:15pm