RoR: Forum

"The fact is that we have the most open immigration policy (as ugly and irrational as most of it is) of all of the developed nations. We accept more legal immigrants, by far, than any nation"

The real problem today is not that the law is too open, but that it is too closed. From where we are today, we need to head toward more legal immigration. A good start will be to legalize all those who entered the country to find work, and who actually do work.

I reject the idea of open borders as a smear term as private property would be protected from trespassers and people would have to enter official ports of entry rather than the conjured image of people waltzing across the border wherever they please that the term implies. But there would not be any tariffs, exchange controls, or barriers to free trade or migration of any type.

and as far as citizenship is concerned, in much the same way that a person established ownership of land under the homesteading process, they should have the option to take citizenship once they have similarly put down roots of permanency here. It is simply not a big deal in a free society.

(Edited by Michael Philip on 6/24, 8:34pm)
(Edited by Michael Philip on 6/24, 11:07pm)

Post 21

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 9:34pm

Teresa,

Why is there a necessity to have a border? Because of jurisdiction. There must be a point where one nation ends and the other starts. Otherwise there is no way to know what laws apply. The only alternatives are a state of anarchy or constant border wars or global government. If we have nations and we don't want border wars we need to have and honor borders.

What common property is violated and damaged by illegal immigration? The first is the rule of law. It is damaging to the concept of honoring the law, ruling by law, to have a law on the books and to ignore it. If the law is wrong, it should be changed. We also lose security in a time where the infiltration of terrorists is a significant risk. We also lose control over who become the residents of our country. In addition we have common elements in our culture that are of great value - our core values - our common language and uncontrolled immigration can destroy those. We have been talking about the entry of hundreds of thousands, but what if an open border policy, and the absence of any upper limit on quotas resulted in 30,000,000 people per year who don't speak our language or share our values? If you believe that would not damage anything then we don't need to talk any further.

It isn't the right to survive by itself that is hyperbole. You are dropping the context and ignoring what I wrote. The right to survive isn't in play in crossing the border. That isn't a survial situation. The immigrant's life isn't at risk - he isn't escaping North Korea - he is looking for a better economic situation.

Teresa, I don't even begin to understand what you are saying in that statement that starts with "It is entirely possible for a border guard..." I have maintained that no one has a right to enter a country by sneaking across it's border. That means that I am maintaining the border guard is in the right to be defending the border. I have never maintained that human nature must be viewed as violent and brutish! That is totally absurd and you will find NOTHING in my writings to justify it.

Too many people think that Objectivism, as it currently stands, knows everything, and we don't have to think any more. Not true. Perhaps you don't want to believe that common property would play any part in today's culture (in the ways I've mentioned), or that it would still exist and have an importance in an culture that had achieved minarchy. I disagree and I've tried to explain why.

You wrote, "Common property is not an individual right, Steve. Surely you know that. If its common, then it also belongs to people like me, who want more customers, opportunities, ideas, friends, etc. Common does not mean "exclusive," but it seems like that's how you're trying to define it."

We do have rights related to common property. If an idiot starts a fire, through negligence, in a national forest, we have all been hurt. The government acts on behalf of the citizens/residients to recover damages, punish criminal behavior, etc. As Objectivists, we would have the national forest sold into private hands, and that eliminates problems of common property for the forest. But we will still have common property and the government's representatives will still need laws to maintain and protect those properties. I can NOT understand how that is hard to comprehend.

I've never claimed that property has rights. You are putting words in my mouth. Only people have rights. The rights differ in different ways (some are moral, some are legal, and legal rights differ by things like contracts). What does not have rights are governments. The White House does not belong to the government. It doesn't own it. It doesn't have rights to it. It uses and manages it in accordance with our laws. Laws created by the people's representatives.

I've claimed that we have property rights in common property - that that is the way to understand common property. Think of the nation as a corporation where all citizens/residents are sharehholders. A shareholder's legal property rights are strictly limited by the laws governing creation of a corporation. No one had done a good job of defining property rights of citizens/resident to common property. It is in the interest of politicians to leave it undefined. Capitalists and Objectivists aren't interestsed in common property and rightly want to get rid of it - convert it to private property. But it all can't be converted and we need to understand our rights in common property.

Post 22

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 9:42pm

Steve, I appreciate your thoughtful response.

On your first point I believe the difficulty lies in the use of "context". I don't believe context is an overarching abstraction but must be applied in each individual case, much as justice should be applied in a courtroom. I agree with the examples in Ed's article. Your example of a starving man breaking into your home for food I believe depends on the context, a decent man in desperate circumstances beyond his prediction or control who fully intends on replacing whatever he takes, with interest, I would conclude he's justified. A common thief, a looter, with the intention only to take, never to repay, someone who has no intention of doing anything productive in his life; no. Of course, you can't know what's in a man's heart at a glance, if you feel at risk self defense is always justified.

I don't know how to respond to your next points without feeling like I'm the one lecturing. As someone who never feels absolute certainty about anything that's a very uncomfortable position to be in.

You said:
"Mike, I appreciate the complements you gave me. But I wouldn't agree with the "holier than thou" label. I do get on a moral high horse at times. It isn't me claiming to be moral and others not - it is my attempt to raise an issue that I see as high on the moral scale of things, or to point out a position that is immoral."

You deserve the compliments I gave. You both deny and accept the "holier than thou" label as far as I can tell. You seem conflicted on this issue.

Also:

"And I do enjoy lecturing, in the sense of imparting more information than is needed or, at times, even wanted. Part of that is my deficit, and part of it is my desire to work on my ideas here, not just communicate."

To work on your ideas you need intelligent people who disagree with you. I wrote on RoR once about the importance of disagreement and it being the energy source of useful discussions. I also wrote about needing goodwill. Part of goodwill is not jumping to conclusions. In the example of Brad Trun, you call him a racist. You have no doubt in your mind that he's a racist. I believe you cannot know he's a racist unless you know of racist acts he has committed. As far as I can tell his position is close to Charles Murray. I admit to wondering what motivates Brad to continue to bring up the same issue over and over against nothing but resistance here. To what purpose? It has occurred to me that he holds a grudge against blacks for some reason. We cannot know his personal history unless he shares it. As far as I know no one has asked Brad directly if he would discriminate against a black person based solely on their race. For instance, he's offering a job, a black person submits a resume, comes to an interview and is clearly far more intelligent and experienced than any other applicant, does Brad refuse to even consider hiring him? I don't know the answer to this question. At some point in the discussion someone could have just said "so what?", concede the IQ is inheritable to some degree and say "what now?". Then perhaps Brad could go on to his purpose for belaboring the whole point.

Regarding Ted. I believe he got exasperated from time to time. I don't think he himself was treated well. Given what he added to virtually any discussion he was involved in I would give him a lot of leeway. Perhaps he's a bit eccentric. Do you imagine Ayn Rand herself could participate in a forum like this and not have "a sharp tongue"? Without "attacking" people? This forum is poorer and accomplishes less without his contributions. Yeah, yeah, I know Luke; "one man's opinion". Now you have a very small pond.

My point is, you need intelligent people who disagree with you to work on your ideas. The conversations will no doubt get heated, but so what? "Sticks and stones..." etc. If you drive off the "bad guys" what is there left to talk about? Or, how do you get any work done on your ideas? How do you change minds if the only people you talk to are already in agreement with everything you say? What's the purpose?

I've gone on way longer than I'm comfortable with. Best regards.

Post 23

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 9:47pm

Michael,

You are rejecting the term "open borders" as a smear that implies anyone waltzing across the border anywhere, anytime. But the fact is that either there are controls that allow some people to enter, and define where and under what conditions, or there are not.

If you are never going to stop someone at a designated point of entry, then why bother making them enter at such a port of entry? In practically one breath, you say there would be no restrictions on entry, but that they would be forced to enter at these designated points. What is your justification for stopping someone from "waltzing" across in a case where you have NO probable cause of them having violated anyone's individual rights?

I maintain that from your model, you have a contradiction. You must either go for total anarchy (any other approach requires you to say just what justifies stopping anyone, at anytime, anywhere), or you have to go for a model where there is some kind of property right that is violated by illegal crossing. That is required to justify ANY law regarding a peaceful waltz across the border. So, which is it? Anarchy? Or do you recognize some kind right to control IN ANY FASHION the entry to the country? If so, what is the basis of that right to stop people?

Post 24

Sunday, June 24, 2012 - 11:26pm

"You are rejecting the term "open borders" as a smear that implies anyone waltzing across the border anywhere, anytime. But the fact is that either there are controls that allow some people to enter, and define where and under what conditions, or there are not."

that is part of the immigration process Steve. Screening for disease, enemy combatants (during war) and for criminals is within that policy; keeping out foreign labor competition, is not. It might even not be necessarily the case that "check ins" or blood tests or such things would be required, perhaps only the immigrant need present records proving he has no criminal history or sickness and is not an agent of an aggressive government etc...

the problem isn't there, the problem is with those who insist on securing the borders first before we start on any immigration reform and then complain about immigrants using public services/taking welfare etc.. and all the other usual conservative complaints.
(Edited by Michael Philip on 6/24, 11:27pm)

Post 25

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 12:30pm

Michael, the business about securing the border first is just a political artifact. If you look at the history, you'll see that the Democrats promised to secure the borders if only the politicians would go along with the amensty program in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (Simpson-Mazzoli Act). The Republicans agreed and then the Democrats reniged on the border control. It is partisan politics. And, unless you are in favor of a welfare state, you'd agree, in part, with the conservatives complaint about providing welfare to illegal immigrants. (I say "in part" because I am opposed to welfare for anyone.)
---------------------

Michael, you can't have it both ways. You wrote, "...that is part of the immigration process Steve. Screening for disease, enemy combatants (during war) and for criminals is within that policy..."

What is the individual right upon which that immigration process, that policy, is based?

If your claim is that individual rights prohibit a government from stopping people from coming to this country, then only probable cause remains. The police can't stop a person inside the country without probable cause. That is a legal implimentation of individual rights.

If a border agent sees something about a person walking across the border that makes it reasonable to suspect that they might be a terrorist, or a certain, known criminal, then that is the probable cause and they can stop them just long enough to check out that suspicion. If they don't see anything suspicious, then they have no authority to stop them.

You can't have it both ways. If individual rights are understood as meaning that someone has the right to come into the United States, then those same rights mean no one has the right to stop them, or to require them to only use port of entries, or to submit to criminal checks, etc.

That is, unless you adopt a model like mine that says there is a common property owned by citizens/residents that is not owned by those who are not citizens/residents and that to enter without using a port of entry, and following specified rules (criminal check, disease, etc) they can be rightfully refused.

(p.s., I didn't create this model as a bunch of jibber-jabber to justify keeping people out. I believe that Objectivists are stuck, many times, on a level that doesn't reflect cultural aspects of life, the source of culture, the evolution of subcultures, the maintenance and transmission of cultural values. Thinking about those things led me see aspects of a culture as a common property of great value.)

Notice that you recognize the border, because you only propose stopping people as they cross it. So what is it a border of? There must be some difference between one side and the other that is justifying the moral right to stop a person, to compel them to produce IDs, to "check in," etc.

Post 26

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 3:21pm

Steve

A non-criminal without cholera/SARS/whatever certainly has every right to come here at pleasure. It's hardly a violation of that person's rights that they enter a designated point and simply be checked to not be a criminal or walking petrie dish. Unless individual rights are to mean non-interference from any entity for any reason at any time. That, of course, is a caricature often foisted on those who believe in individual rights by those who do not. It seems you have adopted this faulty caricature

and no I don't agree at all with conservatives complaining about illegal immigrants being provided welfare. You don't blame the illegals for something that is the complete product of the native american population. Conservatives love the welfare state as much as leftists do. They just want the goodies for themselves and then think they are justified in complaining about others mooching off a system that they themselves supported and continue to do so.

Post 27

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 4:24pm

Michael, you wrote, "A non-criminal without cholera/SARS/whatever certainly has every right to come here at pleasure."

At this point that's just your assertion because it is what we are debating.

You went on to write, "It's hardly a violation of that person's rights that they enter a designated point and simply be checked to not be a criminal or walking petrie dish. Unless individual rights are to mean non-interference from any entity for any reason at any time. That, of course, is a caricature often foisted on those who believe in individual rights by those who do not. It seems you have adopted this faulty caricature."

Sorry Michael, but that doesn't fly. Can a cop stop anyone here inside of the states to run checks on them... maybe take a blood sample, run their prints? Not morally, not without probable cause, not without violating their individual rights. Or do you have a different view of individual rights are? If so, please explain - would you agree to having everyone who wants to cross any state or county border be required to do so at a check-point where they will be checked for infectuous disease and outstanding warrants? Currently there are random highway checkpoints set up in some of the states in the south-west to look for illegals - is that an okay version of your port of entry right to examine people?

There are traffic stops where individuals are checked to see if they have been drinking, and there are stops where people are checked to see if those in the car are wearing seat belts. I believe this is a violation of the constitution and of their individual rights. Do you agree?

I believe that individual rights does mean non-interference (not initiiating force, threats of force, fraud or theft) from any entity for any reason at any time and at any place. The only exceptions are a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that can give rise to probable cause so that a quick investigation can determine if legal proceedings are justified, or legitimate defense of person or property by any entity. That's not a caricature or a faulty conception. It is solidly reasoned moral principle as it applies to the area of law we are discussing. Do you disagree with my formulation? I believe my wording in agreement with Ayn Rand who is the person I learned the concept from. If you don't agree, please say what, specifically, I got wrong, and can you give me an example?
---------------------

You misread me. I don't support illegals using welfare benefits, but I also said that I don't want to see anyone using welfare and never blamed anyone for using them - the blame goes to those who enacted the laws.

You wrote, "Conservatives love the welfare state as much as leftists do. They just want the goodies for themselves and then think they are justified in complaining about others mooching off a system that they themselves supported and continue to do so."

Some conservatives love tranfer payments to their special interests, but some of them do not and favor smaller government with far fewer transfer payments. The current political trends show that the conservatives are, as an average of their group, growing more libertarian, while the left has become far more socialist. So, without defending any party or political group, I'd say that any statement that paints conservatives and leftists as identical is wrong. If you wanted to say that both Republicans and Democrats are supporters of welfare - I'd agree.

Post 28

Monday, April 15, 2013 - 4:22pm

I am asserting it because it is true and your argument against it is non-existent Steve. Your example of what can be done to those people already inside the border shows that you don't understand what you're arguing for either.

Post 29

Monday, April 15, 2013 - 8:30pm