RoR: Forum

I agree with this guy's general thesis: "Immigration good!" but figure that you, Bill, or anyone else on this list could come up with some rational policy suggestions. This guy makes no concrete suggestions, and then he says ridiculous things like: "We are the richest nation on the planet by far. We consume more than anyone else, and waste more than anyone else, twice as much in fact. Our scraps are what some nations exist on." What is he talking about? Perhaps we are more wasteful in absolute terms because we are the biggest in absolute terms. Somehow I just don't see Russia or Venezuela as being a less wasteful place than us. And what the heck does he mean that other countries could survive on our waste alone? In the form of waste? That's just nonsense.

In any case I'd:

Immediately move to secure our border with Mexico, and then with Canada. This may be expensive, but can be done. Corrupt border guards will be the only serious problem.

Sign a guest-worker treaty with Mexico, allowing anyone who passes health and criminal back-ground check to secure a bond for good behavior and to pay a yearly fee, say $3,000.00 up front bond and $1,500.00 a year fee. These workers would be given ten year legal resident status, with an option to apply for citizenship. Their children would not be given citizenship status, if born here, their birth certificates would be issued through the Mexican consulate, not through the county seat.

Allow well educated workers world-wide to come here easily as well, under similar terms. After 9-11 thousands of Indians and other skilled workers - none of the m*slims - had to flee the country to absolutely no benefit to anyone.

Prohibit all immigration from enemy nations, including all Arab and Sharia ruled nations, except on a case-by-case basis.

Require that all immigrants be minimally proficient in English. Make English the national language, forbidding the use of any other language in elections or in any other non-emergency governmental or quasi-governmental agencies, while confirming the right of individuals and businesses to communicate in whatever language they like.

Forbid elementary schooling in public schools in any language other than English as the primary language.

Treat isl*m as a hostile criminal conspiracy by default - in the same way we would treat communism or infiltration by foreign organized crime elements. Treat militarist proselytization as treason. Require all entrants to the country to abjure sharia and jihad, not as religious, but as political matters. Warn violators that they will be sent to a small cold Island off the coast of Alaska - not Guantanamo.

Ted Keer

Post 1

Monday, June 25, 2007 - 9:07pm

William, would you say the same thing if the USA shared a border with Iran?

Post 2

Monday, June 25, 2007 - 9:13pm

I agree with this guy's general thesis: "Immigration good!" but figure that you, Bill, or anyone else on this list could come up with some rational policy suggestions. This guy makes no concrete suggestions, and then he says ridiculous things like: "We are the richest nation on the planet by far. We consume more than anyone else, and waste more than anyone else, twice as much in fact. Our scraps are what some nations exist on." What is he talking about? Perhaps we are more wasteful in absolute terms because we are the biggest in absolute terms. Somehow I just don't see Russia or Venezuela as being a less wasteful place than us. And what the heck does he mean that other countries could survive on our waste alone? In the form of waste? That's just nonsense.

That's not how I read him, Ted. By "waste" he's referring to what we can afford to throw away, because it's simply more valuable for us to throw it away and buy something new than it is for us to keep it. He's citing this as a measure of our economic success -- of our prosperity -- not as some kind of criticism of our society or economic system. In fact, he says, what we can afford to throw away is what some nations exist on. That's how rich we are! And that's why everyone wants to come here.

I also disagree with your proposals for regulating immigration. I believe in free trade between nations, just as between states within the U.S. That doesn't mean that I would allow in people whom we have good reason to suspect of being terrorists or criminals. But I believe it is a violation of an immigrant's rights to impose the other conditions of immigration that you mention. I don't think these conditions are consistent with Objectivism or with the right to freedom of action. They constitute the initiation of force against people who have not been charged with a crime, which violates their rights.

- Bill

Post 3

Monday, June 25, 2007 - 10:26pm

A State Includes a Regulated Commons

Bill, I hold that a state is not only composed of private property, but also consists of a commons which includes its rights of ways and its natural resources. Indeed, it is a principle of common law - an easement of necessity or implication - that one cannot sell a plot of land without allowing the connection of that land to a common right of way. The citizenry owns common rights of way, and common resources such as waterways and wild game in undeveloped areas, and they have a right to exclude or set restrictions upon non-citizens using them. For this reason, I believe immigration should be minimally regulated on reasonable grounds. I find these grounds to be those based on market principles - Mexicans will pay $5,000 to be smuggled across the border illegally now - their families put up the money. I have lived with illegals, and know this. If so, they will pay a bond and a yearly fee to do so with all the legal privileges of green card holders. As for English competency, health and criminal background checks, I doubt you have any disagreement.

Also, freedom of religion doesn't apply to m*slims who do not abjure force. Freedom doesn't include the freedom to wage jihad or impose sharia.

Is there some other objection?

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 6/26, 12:48am)

Post 4

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 12:40am

William, would you say the same thing if the USA shared a border with Iran?

I fail to see what difference that would make with respect to our immigration policy.

In any case, there are people from Iran who are living here now and who have made trips to Iran and back. They are allowed in, because there is no evidence that they are criminals or terrorists. Would you send all Iranians living in the U.S. back to Iran? If not, then on what grounds would you discriminate?

- Bill

Post 5

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 1:02pm

Treat isl*m as a hostile criminal conspiracy by default - in the same way we would treat communism or infiltration by foreign organized crime elements. Treat militarist proselytization as treason. Require all entrants to the country to abjure sharia and jihad, not as religious, but as political matters. Warn violators that they will be sent to a small cold Island off the coast of Alaska - not Guantanamo.

And, what will you do with the Muslims that are born here, in the USA? Do you force them to also "abjure" Sharia law in order to keep their freedom? Or maybe we treat the as hostiles by default also.
Maybe it can also be said that it is okay for you and I to be Objectivists, as long as we renounce Atheism. Hell, the constitution doesn't give us the right to the lack of religion, or religious faith. So, in fact, muslims have more rights in this country than you or me. They are atleast practicing a religion.
Atheists in this country have been seen as hostile towards anyone with religious faith. Some even see us as a threat to Americanism, and American family values. Maybe we should be somehow seperated from the rest of society?

Post 6

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 4:35pm

Harry Binswanger (and I'm assuming ARI) endorse full open borders, HOWEVER that is only if the USA adopts a policy of total offensives against threatening nations (see Harry Binswanger under Wikipedia entry.) I would agree with that assessment. It would be asinine to "widen" or open the borders without first adopting the right foreign policies. You don't want to put the cart before the horse, or you'll end up in an even bigger mess.

Post 7

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 8:20pm

David,

I assume you must know some m*slims. I am sure they are nice people. I know some too.

Isl*m is unique in all extant religions in that it alone calls for the murder of non-believers and the imposition of a world dictatorship by force. My objections to this are neither religious nor racial nor sectarian nor personal. My objections are political. Those who would impose sharia and wage jihad are at best, treasonous conspirators.

As for m*slims here in the country? If they are citizens, they get they same protections that communists did during the cold war and Nazi sympathizers did during WWII. If they are not citizens? Have them abjure sharia and jihad or expel them.

I'm not quite sure what your point about atheism is. I am not anti-god. I have no desire to kill him. I am not a member of the church of atheism, I do not read its text, take part in its sacraments, pay its tithes, attend its Sabbath. I am not an atheist. Neither am I an anti-Santa-Clausian. I simply have no need for any such hypotheses. I am a person who is able to live without initiating the use of force against others or advocating the initiation of force.

Ted

Post 8

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 12:32pm

Isl*m is unique in all extant religions in that it alone calls for the murder of non-believers and the imposition of a world dictatorship by force. My objections to this are neither religious nor racial nor sectarian nor personal. My objections are political. Those who would impose sharia and wage jihad are at best, treasonous conspirators.

You apparently have never read the Bible. I suggest you do. It will have you fearing christians and jews the way you fear muslims.

I am not a member of the church of atheism, I do not read its text, take part in its sacraments, pay its tithes, attend its Sabbath. I am not an atheist. Neither am I an anti-Santa-Clausian. I simply have no need for any such hypotheses. I am a person who is able to live without initiating the use of force against others or advocating the initiation of force.

HUH?!?!

Post 9

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 3:24pm