RoR: Forum

"then what is the principle that we use to draw the line"

Are you seriously offering that question on an objectivists forum? The principle that we draw the line at is the objective standard of ethics, life qua man, ASSAULT is where that line is drawn. Terrorists and Criminals have assaulted people, you can not assault a 'culture' only individuals who have chosen to embrace aspects of that culture, which makes you a criminal or terrorist, and your assault is borne of physical violence. A culture can not assault another culture, and a culture can not be assaulted outside the context of the person embracing that culture.

"and if a million a month doesn't change anyone's mind, try 10 million a month"

Immigration is only a threat to the standard of living of others in socialist welfare nations of entitlement. Absent the murderously stupid arbitrary regulations that have stifled American industrial and economic growth, building housing to support even 10 million immigrants a month would be perfectly feasible.

The recipe for creating the greatest freest nation on earth is to open up immigration, instantly getting a freedom loving productive society - that is exactly how America was borne and how it became great. Too bad there is no free land left. Further if you are worried about too many coming in too fast, well what does any other organization do when too many people want in? It raises the price of admission. Simply charging immigrants for citizen ship status would do wonders.

Post 41

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 8:50pm

Jon

Right, no perps in the mix, no downside (even when our population expands by a third per year)�just skyscraper builders!

You�ve held your position valiantly.

Basically you're saying there's a downside to freedom, well I don't buy your cynicism Jon. And my position is still correct, whereas you are sill a Malthusian. The level of expansion would only occur as fast as the resources became available.

Look, with any kind of increase in supply or demand there is an equilibrium. When the American economy experienced a recession, the rate of illegal immigration actually went down because there wasn't as much available work. But even so, here you are taking the Marxist notion that wealth is finite, that we couldn't possibly increase it, and that more immigrants wouldn't contribute to increasing that pie of wealth. Instead you take a Marxist attitude that wealth is finite, and that we should protect it for the tribe against outsiders that want to cannibalize.

How disappointing to hear you take that attitude.

Post 42

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 9:00pm

Steve if I misrepresented you, than I apologize.

John,

Here is a list of things that I did NOT say:
- Cultures have rights.

The idea I was trying to get across is that you are placing some kind of strawman position on to me that because I favor restricting immigration on the basis of a suspected criminal or terrorist activities, that somehow on principle should mean one could extended this to protecting "culture" and protecting from "over-crowding". Well that is simply a misunderstanding of the principle I am using and simply context dropping. A criminal is someone who violates the rights of others, you cannot say this is the same as protecting a particular culture or protecting from over-crowding, the first notion being a tribalist one, and the second being a malthusian one. If you don't favor such a thing then sorry for the comment.

All I'm saying is that you can't conflate protecting individual rights with protecting a 'culture'. And you therefore cannot say my argument is indistinguishable from protecting individual rights by restricting suspected criminals from coming here with any other reason for restricting immigration based on any other criteria that does not include protecting rights.

I think what you're trying to say is that I'm being arbitrary in my criteria for what is legitimate restriction of immigration, and I'm not, I'm basing it on individual rights, and that restriction should only come from that principle, which means restricting suspected criminals from coming here.

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/06, 9:04pm)

Post 43

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 9:16pm

Michael, you are a breath of fresh air. I�m a little tired of John�s tantrum, whereby some of us discussants are being smeared as Marxist and Malthusian. (And some race-card pulling in post 38, no?)

You write: �If you are worried about too many coming in too fast, well what does any other organization do when too many people want in? It raises the price of admission.�

I find this idea excellent. The stipulated employer (which John and Bill started with) could forward the amount. A market in immigration�with the objectively unwanted coming up short and not allowed in.

Post 44

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 9:30pm

Jon

Michael, you are a breath of fresh air. I�m a little tired of John�s tantrum, whereby some of us discussants are being smeared as Marxist and Malthusian.

Well words have their meanings, and a malthusian is someone who worries about running out resources, a marxist is someone who argues that wealth is finite, both are the positions you take for restricting immigration. It's not a smear if that's what your position is. I was just surprised to hear an Objectivist say that, unless I'm mistaken in thinking you are an Objectivist?

Also I don't know why if you feel slighted by my 'tantrums' I shouldn't feel the same disdain when you sarcastically dismiss my position in post 37. If you want to argue for decorum, then please hold yourself to the same standard you demand of me.

Post 45

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 9:35pm

Michael, you are a breath of fresh air.

You write: �If you are worried about too many coming in too fast, well what does any other organization do when too many people want in? It raises the price of admission.�

I find this idea excellent. The stipulated employer (which John and Bill started with) could forward the amount. A market in immigration�with the objectively unwanted coming up short and not allowed in.

Post 46

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 9:44pm

I don't like that idea for the very reason you would restrict someone with enough resources to become his own employer, or with enough resources to live with a relative who was willing to pay for him to live there, like my father did when he came here penniless but my grandfather let him live with him. Why would the immigrant have to assume the role of employee and not entrepreneur? Why couldn't a relative or a family friend take him into his home and let him live there if they were willing to do that?

Post 47

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 9:53pm

Jon,

How is it that your replies are posting twice? Or do you simply feel a need to repeat yourself?

John, you wrote, "Steve if I misrepresented you, than I apologize."

I don't think you misrepresented him at all, John. I had the same understanding that he considered our culture as needing to be protected from aliens who would compromise it. To me, that says in so many words that he believes a culture has rights.

John, you are doing a superb job in defending freedom of immigration. If these guys had their way, Ayn Rand wouldn't have been allowed in. We can't allow those damn Russians coming over here and spoiling our culture, now can we?!?

- Bill

Post 48

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 10:01pm

Thanks Bill, but nonetheless I don't want Steve to think I wish to antagonize him, so I still extend the apology.

Also I want to address what my good friend Michael Dickey said:

"If you are worried about too many coming in too fast, well what does any other organization do when too many people want in? It raises the price of admission.�

I think he's saying this in response to the idea of too many immigrants coming in too quickly, but I think that should not be a concern and is a concession to one of Jon's concerns of "overcrowding". I don't buy the argument that there could be too many immigrants coming in overwhelming our resources. It ignores basic economic principles of supply and demand. Like any other commodity, immigration is a labor commodity, and if you have a surplus of that commodity, people would simply stop coming here because they wouldn't find a job. You basically reach a labor equilibrium. And the amount of immigration you got would only match with the speed that new resources could be created to accommodate them. Immigrants don't generally come here unless a family or friend offers him shelter initially until they can find a job and make enough money to support themselves. The story of most immigration in this country is basically just like that, and certainly matches what my father experienced.

Post 49

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 10:10pm

John very reasonably argues for letting in an immigrant who will �live with a relative who was willing to pay for him to live there,�

Bill writes that �Ayn Rand wouldn't have been allowed in�

So silly. Actually, Rand was allowed in when getting in was a practical issue magnitudes greater than today. And she got in because relatives swore to make her their problem.

Very different from what goes on today.

Post 50

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 10:13pm

Bill asks: �How is it that your replies are posting twice? Or do you simply feel a need to repeat yourself?�

Slow down, Bill. Read carefully. Don�t make me post this twice.

Post 51

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 10:13pm

Ok Jon, so then I assume you are AGAINST the current immigration laws since even if someone has a relative willing to take them in, THEY STILL can't come here if their country of origin's quota was used up for the year.

And besides Jon, you still don't have the right to demand someone seek shelter. Either you believe in freedom or not, and if you do, then you should let people fend for themselves, and they shouldn't have to prove to you that they can.

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/06, 10:19pm)

Post 52

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 10:20pm

John,

Thanks for the apology. I appreciate that.

Bill,

You said, "I had the same understanding that he considered our culture as needing to be protected from aliens who would compromise it. To me, that says in so many words that he believes a culture has rights."

To say that something might need protection is not the same as saying it has rights! I protect my car from bird crap, that doesn't mean that I think it has individual rights.

It is unlike you to grossly mischaracterize my arguments.

I'm not going to continue trying to make my argument here - At this point I'm not sensing anyone trying to understand the point I'm trying to make, or answer the questions I've raised.

Post 53

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 10:20pm

John writes: �someone has a relative willing to take them in, THEY STILL can't come here if their country of origin's quota was used up for the year.�

Of course I am against that! We could have them if it wasn�t for the free-for-all!

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 5/06, 10:24pm)

Post 54

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 10:23pm

What is this free-for-all you're talking about? Are you saying most illegal immigrants actually don't have a job or are staying with relatives who are legal residents? Or paying for their own shelter?

Post 55

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 10:28pm

John: �you should let people fend for themselves, and they shouldn't have to prove to you that they can.�

I can�t have tens of millions of them in my city! Me and my family are f�ked when that happens.

Hello!

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 5/06, 10:32pm)

Post 56

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 10:31pm

Well illegal aliens come right now Jon, and they find employment, stay with relatives and friends and pay for their own in this country. So much for worrying about a free-for-all.

Post 57

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 10:50pm

What is the homeless estimate today?

Post 58

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 10:56pm

John A.: �Ok Jon, so then I assume you are AGAINST the current immigration laws since even if someone has a relative willing to take them in, THEY STILL can't come here if their country of origin's quota was used up for the year.�

OF COURSE I AM AGAINST THAT. I say take anyone you want to take in�commit to them as a child. I have no problem with that.

Post 59

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 11:02pm