RoR: Forum

Bill, might you make occasion to respond to this?:

Bill writes (post 14): “If a private business is willing to hire a worker from another country, by what right do you or does anyone else tell him that he has no right to come here and work.”

John writes (post 18): “If you have an immigrant that wants to come here and is not a suspected criminal, suspected terrorist nor does he have a communicable disease, is offered employment by a business on American soil, and buys housing for himself from a private property owner, under what principle can anyone say this immigrant should not have the freedom to do this?”

Both of you stipulate a job is waiting (and even purchased housing, in John’s case.) Is this just to make your case more salable, or are these real stipulations—such that your position changes when they change? I.e., if transport became vastly cheaper and ten million newcomers were showing up per month, would your position, (principled as it seems on the right of movement) would it change then, or no? If a Greek collapse causes a worldwide collapse and influx from around the globe—will the right of movement remain absolute?

Post 61

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 5:47am

Jon,

People have an amazing way of creating their own job when no other exists. Illegal immigrants aren't short on creative skills, that's for sure, but you're thinking of these human beings as somehow less than human, with fewer skills for survival and productivity than "legals". That's a mistake.

Post 62

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 8:30am

Right. And each of the ten million per month would have family waiting for them, too, as John imagines.

No limits, ever, no matter what. Got it. Thanks, guys.

Post 63

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 8:32am

Right Jon, I don't how this country survived pre-1924 with it's free-for-all immigration policy. Nevermind that it had experienced one of the most tremendous explosions of wealth in human history.

Post 64

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 8:37am

I understand your position. Thanks.

Post 65

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 12:44pm

A question - land is either public, or it is private - correct?

If public, the Nation has a right to decide if it is to be used (i.e. the current owners)
If private, then those individuals can decide, so for example you can show a valid employment agreement, sponsor, a place to live, that means you now have private support in the Nation, hence are eligible to use the public property and rights-protection elements of the society (the police, the courts, the army).

Welfare state is a matter only of degree, not of type. Either way, shared funds and intellectual property have created a structure - a Nation - that has costs and rights associated to its collective owners, the citizens, who therefore have a right to decide how their property is used.

That latter is important - there is a level of effort people put into the community/state/nation they live in that goes with the property they physically have, where it is located, and everything created up to the point. The legal structure and military did not spring from nothing, nor did other public lands - whether they should be public or not is besides the point - the fact is, it is indeed the same as a large "home owner's association" and we have a right to decide who can buy property here.

We don't have a moral obligation to open our gates and allow thousands, millions, whatever the number is, of homeless, jobless people in, or to let in people from dangerous Islamic states, or to even prove that they are criminals. We don't have to let anyone at all in if we don't wish to (though it is counter-productive to do so if there is a lot of work for them to do).

(Edited by Kurt Eichert on 5/07, 12:53pm)

Post 66

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 1:19pm

I said (to John), "I had the same understanding that he [Steve] 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."

Steve replied,

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.

No, but if you argued that the state should protect your car from bird crap, when the state's function is confined to the protection of individual rights, then doesn't that suggest it?

It is unlike you to grossly mischaracterize my arguments.

Oh, come on, Steve, be a little sympathetic to the context. I didn't "grossly" mischaracterize your argument. My understanding of it was reasonable. After all, I wasn't the only one who drew that conclusion. John drew it as well, and even Michael Dickey got that impression, when he objected to the idea that a culture can be assaulted, pointing out that only individuals can be victims of assault.

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.

Really? I thought that John did address your question about stopping people at the border when he wrote, "As far as probable cause, you would have that if say the immigrant showed up on a database as having committed a crime in their country of origin, or if they popped on a government list of suspected terrorists." It does not violate a person's rights, if the police detain him when they have probable cause for doing so.

- Bill

Post 67

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 1:24pm

Steve: I have the right to keep people off of my property.

Agreed.

Certainly there is someone who has the right to keep people from dismantling the court house and carrying away pieces. It is property and there are rights relating to that property.

Yes, no one, immigrants or current citizens, has the right to dismantle someone else's property without their permission. Not sure how this is relevant to the discussion of whether immigrants should be restricted from coming across a border.

No, I'm not claiming that the government has individual rights. But I am claiming that we have no choice but to have a minimal amount of common property - like a court house.

Actually, a court of law could be located within a privately owned building. In fact, every scrap of land and property currently owned by the government could be rented or leased from private owners. This is a choice, not something that logically absolutely has to be done the current way.

And it is the citizens of country that own that property - in common. Their property rights are delegated to the government who manages that property. Without that delegation, the government wouldn't have the right to do anything with the court house.

No, the government owns that property. Citizens aren't part of the government, unless they are agents hired by it to advance its agenda. The government is somewhat like a really coercive corporation. Would you make the case that citizens who don't own stock in Apple Computer nonetheless own it in common?

If you're making the case that the government can prohibit immigrants from coming into this country by trespassing on land owned by the government, then fine. But you seem to be making the case that the government should be able to prevent private property owners from having immigrants come onto their property even if they are invited to do so, and the owner would like to employ them on that property.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 5/07, 1:28pm)

Post 68

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 1:39pm

If I can't justify stopping people on the street here in the States and making them show ID, confirm they don't have a contagious disease, show that they don't have a criminal record then where does my justification come from when it is done at the border?

You've convinced me, Steve. A government should not be doing anything at the border that it is not permitted to do further inland. Thank you for your insight here.

With my concept of minimal property rights inherent in common property, we can establish justification for controlling who we allow to enter the country - without a violation of an individual's rights.

If by common property you mean property owned by the government, are you arguing that the government should acquire every scrap of land along the border, and every airport inland, and all the coastline? Or are you arguing that the people have a collective right in private property?

A planned community such as a condo with common grounds is not a good analogy, since people purchase property in such a community with the understanding that there will be all these restrictions on use. If they find that onerous, they decline to buy such property. Imposing such a deal upon everyone's property without people's consent is not the same as a voluntary purchase of property with restrictions stated upfront before the sale.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 5/07, 1:51pm)

Post 69

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 2:04pm

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

Hmmm ... ten million people a month fleeing repression elsewhere and seeking a better life here.

Still OK with that.

Get rid of the welfare programs and the government redistribution -- make this a truly FREE country -- and a hundred million people a month would be fine.

I'm totally fine with the notion of people who want to be more free being able to exit from the country or state or municipality that is oppressing them.

Except we wouldn't experience such an inflow for very long, because the statist governments elsewhere would panic and either start restricting egress to stop the outflow of their victims ala the Berlin Wall, or they would reform and become much more free -- or they would become larger versions of Detroit, festering hellholes where everyone with common sense has left.

Post 70

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 2:56pm

Kurt:

Welfare state is a matter only of degree, not of type.

Regardless of the degree, the welfare state is still immoral. According to your arguments that we have some kind of collective right to keep immigrants out, your argument is indistinguishable from assigning any kind of right to the collective rather than the individual. There is no such thing as the right of the collective. So you might as well say the collective has the right to dispense with the property of others, since you've already argued for the transgression against individual property rights by preventing businesses from trading with immigrants.

No, I'm sorry, you don't have right to decide that for me.

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/07, 2:57pm)

Post 71

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 8:50pm

I was not supporting a welfare state, only saying that having one has no bearing on immigration.

There is no transgression of property rights in preventing someone from entering a Nation. You can still trade, they just can't come in to live here unless they meet certain criteria, which like a home owners, gets to be decided by the government you and I elected.

Remember - your argument now says that if I live in a community that we all bought houses for and own, and that has some common roads and maybe parks, you are saying just because you like to trade with say any kind of person - say hundreds and hundreds of drug dealers, homeless, mixed in there are thieves, they all can come without any regard to what everyone else wants, right?

Here is the problem - you suppose well, we cant prove they are criminals, yet robbery and vandalism and all sorts of things happen, but with the exception of those we catch - more keep streaming in, and we can't ever catch as many as come in, yet this is all ok, I cannot close the gates you say.

Everyone gives nice examples, but what about my example? No one argues the nice examples because those people obey the law and an easy, reasonable system will handle them, but the problem with criminals is they don't give a shit about non-inititation of force. Pretty soon they can take over by force if you put zero controls on it.

That is very close to what is happening now in AZ - doesnt mean this law is good, in fact it may be bad, but the concept of a border and legal entry is entirely valid.

Post 72

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 9:46pm

There is no transgression of property rights in preventing someone from entering a Nation.

People own themselves, and they own their actions. I am my own property. Restricting free action by force is a claim that an individual doesn't really own his/her body, mind and life. It's a claim that the rights to think, act, and associate are obtained by an outside authority, rather than by birth.

You can still trade, they just can't come in to live here unless they meet certain criteria, which like a home owners, gets to be decided by the government you and I elected.

I would never elect anyone who would seek to control how trade is conducted, or from where, or by and to whom. I don't quietly respect laws that don't respect rights.

Remember - your argument now says that if I live in a community that we all bought houses for and own, and that has some common roads and maybe parks, you are saying just because you like to trade with say any kind of person - say hundreds and hundreds of drug dealers, homeless, mixed in there are thieves, they all can come without any regard to what everyone else wants, right?

This is a gross mischaracterization, because it doesn't even remotely resemble reality in any way, shape or form.

It's been stated over and over: criminal background checks (violent, and universally recognized rights violating crime.). Immigration shouldn't be the years long, expensive, bureaucratic hassle it currently is.

Post 73

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 10:23pm

I don't see what the difference is between crossing the border that separates California and Mexico and crossing the border that separates California and Arizona. Should we have an immigration quota for Californians' moving to Arizona? We don't want Californians crowding out Arizonians, do we? How about an immigration quota for residents of Navajo County moving to Apache County, Arizona? Do we want the Navajos crowding out the Apaches? And while we're at it, how about an immigration quota for residents of Phoenix moving to Scottsdale. Scottsdale has enough people. In fact, now that I think of it, folks should just stay where they are. That way, we'd all be a lot of better off! [g]

Post 74

Saturday, May 8, 2010 - 9:14am

Kurt, I refer you to Teresa's comments as her response mirrors exactly what my rebuttal would've been:

That is very close to what is happening now in AZ

What's happening in Arizona is they are dealing with a current immigration legal structure that is untenable. It draws resources away from trying to catch true criminals who actually violate people's rights to catching people who do not violate anyone's rights, are trying to come here for economic opportunities, but are still chased after, rounded up and sent back.

If you had an immigration policy that said as long as you are not a suspected criminal, terrorist or have a dangerous communicable disease, and if you showed up at an appointed border crossing checkpoint for a border agent to process you, you can come in, then why would any innocent immigrant try to cross the border under cover of night? They wouldn't, because innocent immigrants would know by showing up at a border crossing checkpoint, they would have nothing that would legally stop them from crossing. Who would fear the most about showing up at one of these border crossing checkpoints? Criminals, terrorists and people with dangerous communicable diseases, because they would be turned away. So then you can actually spend the resources more efficiently on stopping criminals and terrorists from crossing the border.

But mix in these current bad immigration laws with further bad drug laws, and it should be no surprise you have chaos and mayhem.

Also this argument that we should stop immigrants from coming in because they haven't contributed to paying for the infrastructure we enjoy is specious, since it presumes that for some reason immigrants would not be contributing to such an infrastructure and even expanding it to accommodate the extra economic growth that comes with the added labor competition. Who exactly do you people think built our current infrastructure anyways? Where did those people come from?

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/08, 9:40am)

Post 75

Saturday, May 8, 2010 - 12:16pm

Ok let me try to take one thing at a time:

Restriction of Free Action - I would agree if there were no nations - as it stands, the nation state exists. If we do what most of you suggest, which is check background, for diseases, etc.. that by itself, as someone earlier said here, is a restriction of movement. You are also restricted in your ability to enter private property. Entering the bounds of a nation requires you to be able to enter either public or private property and it is perfectly ok to check or have requirements to do so.

I never agreed with current laws. They are bad and contribute to the problem, I am saying simply that - in and of itself - having a secure border of some kind is 100% legitimate role of the state. For example, I could otherwise send over an entire army and invade by stealth if no security existed. Absent someone to check, I can send 100,000 soldiers with rifles across the border, or tanks, or whatever I wanted to. Or, gangs of heavily armed drug dealers can cross the border, intent on murder, theft, and kidnapping, which is what is happening now.

So your own arguments - checking for x,y, and z at the border, require restriction of freedom. That therefore requires some sort of standard for trade as well - you can't trade dangerous arms, nuclear material, or trade with enemy states we are at war with. If the state had no trade restriction, we could have been sending oil to the germans or japanese during ww 2 according to you.

I don't disagree with what your first 3 paragraphs say John.

The last makes sense but also requires that we CHOOSE who we want to come in - most people, agreed, are a benefit, but absent some system of choice, we can end up with the deadly drug gangs above.

Post 76

Saturday, May 8, 2010 - 1:00pm

I was not supporting a welfare state, only saying that having one has no bearing on immigration.

Without a welfare state, you can open the borders without worrying about your rights being transgressed by people moving here solely to mooch on others.

With a welfare state, even a libertarian has to be worried about the work ethic of those who choose to move here.

There is no transgression of property rights in preventing someone from entering a Nation. You can still trade, they just can't come in to live here unless they meet certain criteria, which like a home owners, gets to be decided by the government you and I elected.

Trade isn't just financial transactions occurring over a computer. Trade includes people physically showing up to work for someone, to become an employer, to become a vendor, to swap tangible and intangible items of value so both sides of the exchange wind up something they value more. If you are prevented from crossing an imaginary line, huge portions of trade are foreclosed, and prosperity suffers.

Remember - your argument now says that if I live in a community that we all bought houses for and own, and that has some common roads and maybe parks, you are saying just because you like to trade with say any kind of person - say hundreds and hundreds of drug dealers, homeless, mixed in there are thieves, they all can come without any regard to what everyone else wants, right?

"We all" didn't buy the house I live in now -- my wife and I bought it. No one else should have any say in what we do there if we violate no one else's natural rights.

Saying I can't buy certain types of drugs and ingest them violates my natural rights. I may not choose to engage in that behavior because I think it would be harmful to me, but it's not any of my damn business if other people want to do so, or sell that product to consenting buyers.

Whoever owns the roads and parks, whether the government or private owners, has the right to set conditions on who may enter there and what activities they may engage in.

Are you saying that being homeless -- not currently having a fixed residence -- should be a crime?

Here is the problem - you suppose well, we cant prove they are criminals, yet robbery and vandalism and all sorts of things happen, but with the exception of those we catch - more keep streaming in, and we can't ever catch as many as come in, yet this is all ok, I cannot close the gates you say.

You're gonna have thieves no matter what you do, some wearing suits and looking respectable, some who have lived here all their lives. Are you saying that immigrants are disproportionately more disposed to crime than the natives? The numbers I have seen have indicated the opposite. Do you have a link to back up your assertion that people who seize the initiative and go to a great deal of trouble and expense to get here are NOT more entrepreneurial and disinclined to live off others than natives?

Everyone gives nice examples, but what about my example? No one argues the nice examples because those people obey the law and an easy, reasonable system will handle them, but the problem with criminals is they don't give a shit about non-inititation of force. Pretty soon they can take over by force if you put zero controls on it.

The greatest levels of theft -- the biggest criminal organization we have -- occur in the various levels of government, which currently is based almost entirely on the initiation of force, and of which all the members of the governing body have to be citizens. These people already HAVE taken over by force and turned a minarchy into an entity with very little compunction about rights violations.

That is very close to what is happening now in AZ - doesnt mean this law is good, in fact it may be bad, but the concept of a border and legal entry is entirely valid.

So, we should have passports and border guards between states? Between cities? Between city blocks? Why is the border between Washington state and British Columbia so guarded, but the border between Washington state and Idaho indicated by nothing but a sign by the side of the road?

Post 77

Saturday, May 8, 2010 - 1:14pm

The last makes sense but also requires that we CHOOSE who we want to come in - most people, agreed, are a benefit, but absent some system of choice, we can end up with the deadly drug gangs above.

"We" don't get to choose -- governments are making that choice for us, and me and you are NOT the government.

The system of choice the government is using is making most everyone here worse off, with the exception of some special interests -- unions trying to keep out competitors and so on.

The "deadly drug gangs" are the result of the ~~War on the Laws of Supply and Demand~~ War on Drugs. Legalize all drugs, and those deadly drug gangs would be driven out of business by Walgreens, Safeway, etc.

Now that Prohibition is ended, do you see deadly alcohol gangs engaging in turf wars? Try going to a winery or microbrewery and try to spot the violent, armed criminals among the yuppies sipping legal drugs and having a pleasant time.

Post 78

Saturday, May 8, 2010 - 1:39pm

Kurt:

Restriction of Free Action - I would agree if there were no nations - as it stands, the nation state exists. If we do what most of you suggest, which is check background, for diseases, etc.. that by itself, as someone earlier said here, is a restriction of movement.

I honestly thought I had successfully challenged this assertion.

This will be my last rebuttal to this point that has been brought up several times now.

Stopping people at the border to verify innocence or suspicion of guilt is a legitimate function of government, and is simply called due process. No it's not the same exact due process that occurs within the United States borders since we don't stop people traveling from California to Arizona, but that is simply a case of context-dropping. The reason why we don't do that is because California and Arizona exists under the same umbrella of legal jurisdiction, American jurisdiction does not extend to the country of origin an immigrant comes from, so therefore the epistemological problem I spoke of before is far worse when it comes to someone coming in from a jurisdiction we have little control over, the epistemological problem of knowing who is innocent or guilty is far less of a problem within the jurisdiction of the United States borders. We can have treaties with those foreign jurisdictions, share databases with them, make travel between those borders easier, etc and therefore ease the epistemological problem that we have. This is simply a recognition that the freedom of movement does not grant one anarchy.

But this is consistent with the principle of defending individual rights. To suggest we shouldn't do this implies that either;

1) No restriction whatsoever and even criminals coming in to do harm to others is permissible

2) We restrict immigration on any number of ad hoc, unprincipled reasons, including such things like protecting culture, preserving ethnic demographics, labor protectionism, etc.

The only option consistent with the principles of freedom is;

3) Restricting criminals, terrorists and those with dangerous communicable disease from entering the United States.

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/08, 2:44pm)

Post 79

Saturday, May 8, 2010 - 2:40pm