An Objectivist Response to Immigration Policy | Amy Peikoff
from Amy Peikoff's article:"
I agree with Mazlish that the creation and maintenance of a proper government depends on at least a significant, influential minority holding the right ideas. However, this does not mean that a proper government can use force to maintain ideological consensus. A proper government enforces objective laws which describe the acts people do (or refrain from doing) which violate others’ rights. Why should immigration law be any different? How is an ideological screening of immigrants any different, in principle, from prosecuting “hate crimes”?"
I agree with Mazlish that the creation and maintenance of a proper government depends on at least a significant, influential minority holding the right ideas. However, this does not mean that a proper government can use force to maintain ideological consensus. A proper government enforces objective laws which describe the acts people do (or refrain from doing) which violate others’ rights. Why should immigration law be any different? How is an ideological screening of immigrants any different, in principle, from prosecuting “hate crimes”?"
A free person can travel where ever and when ever he wants to. A government can only stop them if they have probable cause that he committed a crime. Any sort of government ID or compliance test violates the Constitution under the fourth and fifth amendments at least
Those of you arguing for a wall, or a test, or a background check are arguing against freedom and against the constitution. Benjamin Franklin's quote is appropriate here "those who would trade a little liberty for a little safety will get neither and deserve neither.
As Ron Paul says in his new book, “Why not start promoting trade, friendship, diplomacy, and travel among all willing countries?”
I have traveled extensively, and I agree with the description Halling gives about entering the country. The U.S. is not the country you believe you live in. Do not make any controversial statement. Your goal is to get past immigration and customs without being arrested. Think I am kidding? I can give you many stories which would make your hair stand on and which you would yell "these things cannot happen in America." They can, and do.
As I understand it, the open borders are between the EU nations, not others. The mid-east people are being treated as refugees, under humanitarian principles, not as immigrants under open borders .The problem of citizens of the various EU countries mixing does not seem, at least as far as I have witnessed, to be a problem.
Doing the normal shopping you do to live day-to-day, I met merchants from many countries and I saw camaraderie among them and the “locals.” I liken it to somebody moving from Nevada to Arizona.
I have paid in for food stamps forever that does not entitle me to food stamps.
That said the answer to social security is to make it a real insurance program first, as was done in Chile and I believe in Britain. Simultaneously phase out SS. Then make the insurance program voluntary.
It is an even worse investment for me and will be infinitely worse for my children.
That said, when I signed up for SS it was called insurance whether it was or not - it has been a rip off since day one. I do not feel badly at all for collecting it today. Once I discovered what a rip off it was I looked for a way out but could never find and acceptable one.
Every American is being victimized by this, so if you insist on being nasty about it, call and complain to your congress critters.
Meanwhile welcome to my ignore list.
I guess I was not as smart as you when I signed up for SS in order to get the card so I could get a job. You must have figured a way around that????
Meanwhile the younger people you are crying about are the ones voting for the socialists running our government! They do not yet know TANSTAAFL.
You'd better grandfather in social security for those who have had the money taken from them by use of force. You realize, of course the opposition to your suggestions would be overwhelming. Mainly because most folks, never having experienced it or intellectualized it, haven't a clue as what freedom really is.
However, one test for ideology that I would support is to eliminate any Islamic immigration. America has thrived in the past through assimilation of freedom loving people that wanted to work and earn an improvement in their lives; Islam does not assimilate (by it's own definition) and it's primary goal is to conquer other cultures. As such, it is a mortal threat to any society that it comes into contact with.
The reality is that a nation absolutely exists based on borders. Those borders indicate control and uniformity of government. If you advocate for the elimination of borders, you are taking an anarchist stance. Countries cease to exist when they do not control their borders and who is coming and going.
Second, it is absolute nonsense that people should be able to come into our country with impunity. As part of maintaining a nation and it's structure, we must all agree on the laws in play and we all must agree to be subject to them. Those who voluntarily choose to come to our nation must agree to uphold the values and ideals we uphold, or we absolutely have the right to deny them entry. Such were the values of the Gulch, as I recall: no one - not even Dagny - was permitted to stay without swearing the oath of fealty. I find it not only fascinating, but somewhat confusing to see so many Objectivists arguing for open borders given the strong case laid out by Galt.
No one gets to this place by faking reality in any way whatsoever. - John Galt
even if privately owned (I build the beginnings of a city) the roads are passable for all in order to get people to buy lots. The history of the US were toll roads not to mention the fact that no one makes the surface of the ocean productive, they just travel on it and other waterways.
Those who are citizens of this nation enjoy the rights of citizenship, which include the ability to use taxpayer-funded institutions such as roads, sidewalks, etc. as their right. "Public" lands, etc. are administered by the Government as a trust, but ownership belongs to the People - the citizens of that nation. All others have conditional privileges only. Those conditional privileges are extended to guests (non-citizens) under the condition that they respect the rights, properties and people within our nation as befitting good guests. As long as they act as the guests they are, they should be treated fairly, but if they abuse those privileges, we have every right to ask them to leave and to expel them where necessary. Unless they are suspected of a crime or breach of that trust as a guest, they should not be bothered by unreasonable law enforcement edicts, I agree. But if they are suspected of a crime, I think it would be foolhardy to constrain law enforcement to treating them like normal citizens when they are not subject to the same laws!
The conditions upon which we choose to offer invitations for guests is certainly up for discussion, but to deny that there exists a difference between citizens with rights and guests with privileges lies at the heart of the anchor baby phenomenon we have going on right now, not to mention the problems with guests overstaying their visas or those coming here on false pretenses. Their dishonesty does not imply a duty on our part to accommodate them or to facilitate their status as moochers. Their guest status and privileges are wholly dependent on their good behavior.
Freedom to travel does not include the freedom to trespass. The definition of freedom that you and db are making is in direct contradiction with my definition of property ownership. If your increased freedom abridges my freedom, then it requires a sacrifice on my part that I am unwilling to make.
Regardless of what you think, Kh, "Don't tread on me." is not "collectivist thinking". It is precisely the individualist thinking that prompted people to move to America.
Perhaps you need to reread Atlas Shrugged. Galt's Gulch was by invitation only. It was a ... club. One trespasser was permitted, but she was a very special case. Moreover, her special case ended when she was over her injuries. Unless I was the sole owner of such a club, I would not presume to choose who gets to belong. However, admission to the Gulch did require someone to take Galt's oath and mean it in the way Galt meant it.
Unlike many conservatives today (like Mark Levin) who demand to allow immigration only by people they decide is "good" for the country, including protectionism for 'jobs', which is equally collectivist, Ayn Rand was properly strongly in favor of freedom of immigration. Without it she could not have come here and she had every right to do so. Obama and the left versus Mark Levin and the conservatives is a false alternative.
About the only difference I can see is the club is subsidiary to a country and the country is sovereign -- except the leftists want to make countries subsidiary to the U.N.
While governments have no inherent right, like corporations they can implement the rights of the people who make them up, in this case citizens.
So how this all comes out in the sense of immigration and free travel is that the land owned by the government that has not been deeded to individuals or corporations is managed by the government not because of any inherent right the government has but the rights of the citizens who direct the administration of 'their' land. This is entirely analogous to the officers of a corporation directing the use of corporate property on behalf of the shareholders.
A private individual delegates his right to defend himself. When under direct attack he may still defend himself and need not ask permission, but may not use force beyond that in retaliation. He does not "request" the government to act, government must act in accordance with law. The court system is part of that.
Citizens do not "direct" government administration of land. Government is supposed to use certain kinds of property only within limits required for defined government functions, not "manage" land on behalf of citizens. A government is not a corporation.
Immigration pertains to people coming into the country regardless of where they go once in the country and what property they use, whether public or private and regardless of permission granted by private owners for particular uses.
While government is supposed to use property within limits required for defined purposes, there are options as to how this can be done. The administrators selecting among options are still responsible to the citizens for the performance of their duty.
We do not "collectively" own all the land in the US. it's an us against them attitude. You are continuing to push this anti-freedom point of view. I have given valid, pro-freedom solutions to the Immigration issue. The Gulch was a club. Countries are not. People are not "born" into any sort of legitimately functioning club. Men are free and they own themselves.
There is a difference between the 'collective' of considering the state more important than the individual and the simple use of the word collective to imply people working together.
But government does not "own" land; it controls public property in accordance with the functions of government only. "Public ownership" means no one owns it. Individuals own land and use it by right; governments do not do anything by right. Government is supposed to protect private property rights in accordance with objective standards, it is not the source of property rights, as presupposed in "giving" or "selling" people land. Government cannot own land. Today of course statist government is doing much, much more than it should both in its own land "ownership" and denying property rights to individuals.
While we talk about people purchasing land, all land was initially seized by some government which handed it out. That's the only way we decide that it's 'owned' by someone.
How else would you have ownership of property. Yes, you bought it from someone, but who did they buy it from etc.
The latter is how the country was originally settled. Ownership was acknowledged and recognized by government, not "handed out" by government. No one can "give away" something he does not own as private property. Government jurisdiction is not ownership. Only individuals can have rights.
The early process was corrupted, especially in the colonial era, due to feudalist claims by grantees of European governments. In practice that power was wrested from their hands and worked around, with or without formalities, and the original privileged "grants" were eventually ignored. But government did not "steal" it, there were no owners to steal from. They tried to make overreaching claims to unowned land based on political privilege, which did not survive. See Rothbard's multi-volume history of the colonial era Conceived in Liberty.
The settlement of the west in the post colonial period was based on an intended orderly process for recognition of claims to ownership of previously unowned land. That ended in the late 19th century when the early European-influenced statists progressively claimed permanent control by government of land still not recognized as claimed privately.
Today's "public ownership" or "government ownership" is a misuse and corruption of the concept of property ownership as a right.
If your argument holds then 84% of the state of Nevada is owned by no one. Anybody who wants to can go and declare that they own it. Want to own half a state? Just go say it's yours.
Even worse, if the government cannot deed lands then no one can EVER own that 84% of Nevada since there is no way to get a recognized deed.
The conservatives' "uniformity of government" and "everyone must agree on laws and be subject to them" without regard for what they are is a thoroughly statist and collectivist premise in opposition to a free society based on the rights of the individual. The premises of the statism of conservative nationalism versus opening the country to what amounts to an invasion of illiterates sucking off welfarism and voting for more Democrat socialism are a false alternative.
Let us suppose that a free illegal alien trespassed on my property. Would the US government, acting on my behalf, have the right to infringe upon that alien's rights? Not only does it have the right, it has the responsibility. This falls under the "common defense" clause in the Preamble of the Constitution. Any society that fails to recognize that will soon be overrun, much as Europe has been overrun in the last generation. Providing for a common defense is the reason why nations exist.
This is why there is the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause in the 14th Amendment. What that means is that the free person's right to move about freely presumes that he/she is going to follow the laws associated with that state, country, etc., including trespassing. If someone comes to a country without following that country's protocols, the country ought to assume that the free person is of ill intent because the free person is already an uninvited guest.
Example: If a total stranger from another country committed "breaking and entering" into your house and just plopped himself/herself on your most comfy chair, would you not be ready to evict that stranger?
This is the proper analogy. The illegal alien has already committed "breaking and entering".
Was the Constitution written to apply to the Netherlands? Or Tunisia? No. It was written for the benefit of the thirteen colonies and their peoples. It was submitted to each in turn for ratification, and every territory since included under the umbrella of the United States has in turn ratified the authority of the Constitution as binding in their geographic area. The borders so established dictate the extent to which the Constitution has authority and does not extend past those boundaries until such a time as an additional territory is added through petition and acceptance.
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-i...
I also refer back to the following words: "We the People of the United States of America..." It doesn't say "We the free people of the world."
There comes a time when Conservatives run up against Objectivist foundations which they do not like. I get that. Pleas check premises. :)
The idea of open borders does not seem to correspond with how they saw matters at all. They saw citizenship as a matter of allegiance and affinity to a single set of principles such as those espoused within the Constitution. The Naturalization Act of 1795 specifically touches upon those matters in a rather unambiguous way and dictates that the rights of the Citizen were held to be substantially higher than that of the non-Citizen. Additionally, I would refer to the legal analysis posted above. I don't see anything in the Constitution which denotes that its protections apply to any peoples over which it does not have jurisdiction or those of whom no allegiance is sworn. You obviously believe differently, so I encourage you to present your case.
There is a difference to me in being a citizen and being a guest of a nation as a tourist, worker, etc. I lived abroad for two years and every 10 weeks had to renew my visa or leave the country and re-enter. Such were the terms put upon me as conditions for my entry into that nation and I accepted it as such. I didn't have a problem with that policy: their home = their rules. But my relationship to their executive powers was wholly different in form and function. If they wished to try me for a crime, any such claims would first be subject to review and intervention by my consulate. They had only secondary jurisdiction rather than the primary jurisdiction which is a result of citizenship. I am surprised that being a lawyer this important distinction slipped your notice.
As far as the right to interfere, I agree with you. Law enforcement shouldn't harass anyone until and unless they establish probable cause. However, that applies once one is already within the borders of the United States. I find no incongruity with a screening to deny entry in the first place. Please note that it is my opinion that a citizen should be under no such restriction, however, as they already fall completely under the jurisdiction of the laws of that nation such (as would be the case when you and db return to the United States).
As to your responsibilities as visitors in Mexico, they should be to act the role of good guests. And maybe to filter your water ;) I can't offer specifics beyond that, as I only visited Guadalajara once on a business trip.
the citizenry obey its laws. . the constitution is the law which
started it all, and allegiance to it should be required by all.
my immediate conclusion is this::: take an oath to obey
the u.s. constitution in order to vote. . learn the constitution
in order to become a citizen. . control immigration with a
constitution-supporting requirement rather than a rights-supporting
requirement. . I do not let just anyone sleep in my home
in order to support freedom. . the u.s. is my home. -- j
.
It is perfectly acceptable for citizens or people in the country to ignore bad laws. Every person in the US does this everyday or they would be unable to do anything.
a problem -- just like the one in place right now!
and the disobeying of bad laws begins the process of
changing them ... I hope. . we should have sunset laws
on the laws in force ... except the constitution. -- j
.
Suppose I own 5 acres with a small farm (I don't). If "immigrants" come onto my property, claiming they are "free to travel freely," and have a "right" to be on my property, I will not be pleased. If I allow migrants to glean, that is good, but should be my voluntary choice. Otherwise, they are trespassing, violating my individual rights, and I have a right to defend "me" (including my property) against them. So even if "freedom to travel freely" is a real thing, it is limited by citizens' private property lines. And the primary job of the Government is to protect the property rights of its citizens.
May not a parallel be made between this private property and "national property rights"? We want the land claimed by USA citizens (whether private or "public") to not be Mexican just because Mexico claims it; we (our Government) defends it as our own.
I believe that our immigration policy should be much easier than it is. (I love The New Collosus.) That needs reform, you will have no debate from me. That said, I think our sovereign nation should have absolute sovereignty over who is allowed in, even temporarily, even if this means building a big wall.
How do you define the concept of ownership?
Property?
Maybe you mean there "should" be no national property rights. But it seems to me hard to deny that there in fact is. We have public lands, which are owned by no single individual (or every individual American citizen?). If Mexican citizens tried to come along and claim ownership, they would be prevented at the point of a gun. And rightly so, since it is the job of the Government to protect the property rights of its citizens against those who would take them away.
Perhaps you just don't like the term. I don't mind calling it something else, just say the word. My point is that the USA has a national geographical border which distinguishes it from Mexico. Likewise, American citizens claim and protect the land within that border as our own, even if not owned by any single individual. I just think there is a parallel that can be drawn. An individual is right to defend his property against those who would take it away; the Government is right to protect "its citizens'" property (or at least all property within its borders). This may mean preventing some people from trespassing; at the very least it means knowing who is visiting, and being able to offer the protection it is tasked with.
Right now, we are sucking at that. A wall might help. Maybe not, but my point remains, that the Government ought to be able to protect our borders. It is not doing that; it is not even able to control our borders if it wanted to, presently.
What is a property right?
Who owns the Grand Canyon? And our highways?
When a person's "right to travel freely" conflicts with my "right to private property," who wins?
Do all law-abiding individuals on earth (all 7+ billion of them) have a "right to travel freely" to enter the USA, whether or not we the people want them to?
Yes all 7 billion people could enter the US if the US was a free country. That is part of the definition of freedom.
Property rights are not granted by governments, they are enforce by governments. It is quite a complex subject and you seem to not understand even the most basic ideas See Capitalism the Unknown Ideal - on Airwaves and the essay on Intellectual Property rights
In the mean time, I would be interested in engaging with you further, if you would be willing to put in your own words some of these basic ideas.
[Edited for a missing word.]
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...
The following from Wikipedia is also reasonable.
Introduction of points-based systems[edit]
Along with New Zealand adopting a radical direction of economic practice, Parliament passed a new Immigration Act into law in 1987. This would end the preference for migrants from Britain, Europe or Northern America based on their race, and instead classify migrants on their skills, personal qualities, and potential contribution to New Zealand economy and society. The introduction of the points-based system came under the National government, which pursued this policy-change even more than the previous Labour Party administration. This system resembled that of Canada, and came into effect in 1991. Effectively the New Zealand Immigration Service ranks the qualities sought in the migrants and gives them a priority using a points-based scale. As of 2009 this framework continues to control immigration, however from 2010 the new Immigration Act will replace all protocols and procedures.
The Government published the results of an immigration review in December 2006.[10]
Regulations provide that immigrants must be of good character.[11]
2) The values I am referring to that are being diluted include a) the idea that government should be limited in its scope and powers; b) the freedoms in the Bill of Rights (Many who come to the US from elsewhere have no appreciation for the right to keep and bear arms, think it is OK for government to search and seize, think that "objectionable" speech should be limited, etc.
When those immigrants become citizens, they cancel out my vote, thus diluting me of one of my property rights.
Suppose, for example, that Galt's Gulch had an open borders policy. It would not take long for looters and moochers to outvote producers. Two wolves would decide that the one sheep is dinner by popular vote. Vote dilution is a serious problem. In my part of Florida, the central east coast of Florida, many liberals from the Northeast move down either to work or retire, and they bring their values with them. Now, the government cannot and should not take sides in that sort of situation between citizens. However, it does have the right and the responsibility to protect citizens from vote dilution by non-citizens.
1. where are large social programs in the Constitution?
2. Where is democracy mentioned? we are supposed to be a Constitution based republic
see, everybody is up in arms over Immigration and no one wants to do the hard work to be up in arms about the underlying ideas that formed the nation. This post is not a political one, but a philosophical one. Please check your premises.
I wanted to do (and did locally) the hard work to be up in arms about the underlying ideas that formed the nation. Since then I have shrugged. Mazlish said that a sufficiently large minority was necessary to protect Constitutional ideals. With President Zero's effective elimination of the Tea Party via IRS targeting, that minority is no longer sufficiently large, and it is hard to envision it ever getting that large again. There are too many moochers. Romney errored in the percentage of moochers that he thought the US had.
Let us suppose that I were to agree with you. If someone walks across the border as an uninvited guest, on what logical basis can I expect to trade value for value with that uninvited guest? That person has already done something that is contrary to one of my values. Can I expect an honest trade with someone who has already dishonestly obtained passage into my country? No, I cannot. In fact, the logical thing to do in such a situation is to be suspicious. In a society that puts honesty and integrity first, I should not have to be suspicious by default. Remember how refreshing the section in Atlantis was where the woman was homeschooling her two children. They were being raised in a society free from such suspicion.
By tolerating one law broken, I have to expect all laws to be broken as a matter of habit. I see no reason to sacrifice (word choice intentional) a society based on honor so that one or more person who has proven himself/herself dishonorable by violating just laws has freedom.
I'm not sure I agree with "not a legitimate function of government to impede the travel of free people". At least not in practice. Is there ANY country that currently has truly open borders? No border stations, no passport checks?
I'd like to see the world become a place full of reasonable, logical people who all treat each other with respect. But the current situation is that governments feel (rightly or wrongly) that they have an obligation to protect their citizens from "evil outsiders". And many, if not most, citizens expect that from their government.
some hours the crew jumped on a very plush european style bus and headed to Italy for the flight home. One border checkpoint with no stopping crossing into Slovenia none from Slovenia to Italy. Tickets waiting at the couonter we checked bags at the airport in Milan probably 20-30 minutes for the entire crew and flew to US. in the US the entire procedure for entering was more like an hour and half most of it due waiting for baggage with two full ID check points. Leaving the US heading south it's three to five minutes IF you need to pick up a Visa and the last time they didn't unload baggage nor offload the passengers. The longest part was the bag boys tip collection. Entering the US is 30 minutes minimum travel by bus and if some one needs a US VISA add one hour minimum but that has speeded up considerably.The longest was two hours waiting on Visa issue for some of the passengers (four I think) just two years ago. Both sides have other checkpoints about 10 to 20 kilometers from the actual border and the USA has some new detector units for the busses that look like Terminator on Steroids very Sci FI but no passengers on on board. Mexico one time has taken up access panels to the bus flooring and checked for contraband or stowaways. Greece both Athens and Crete, Germany, Portugal, England and Holland we had more trouble finding our boarding check in gate than anything else. Just because your ticket says Lufthansa (hooray) doesn't mean you don't end up on United (garbage) though it doesn't state that on the ticket. Germany is very much for checking your papers are all in order but Portugal the least. I like going into Ireland and switching to Ryan Air for other Euro destinations but the ticket prices might be a bit steeper these days. Funny thing...the sushi in the airport in Japan was no where near as good as most decent sushi places in the USA. Maybe it was a bad hair day for the chef.
After ten years of traveling to or from ships all around the globe the most delays, inspections and the least efficient or 'visitor friendly' was entering the USA with Chicago Midway the worst. As for TSA i am reminded of the movie Gotcha "velcom to the DDR!"
The hordes of illegals coming across the Mexican border are not traveling by air.
So far and this may change my $100 a month premium for Medicare has provided two or maybe three flu shots.
Thanks,
VG
it's significantly cheaper. I live next to a beautiful, basically deserted beach. I am in a roughly americanized subdivision next to a small town. I feel safe
If you live outside the country, your taxable income drops hugely. I am less than 45 minutes away from an international hub, so I can get back to the states easily. This is not third world living, but second. Think US in the 60s except with smartphones, internet and Cable.
If these things happened the numbers would be manageable and not seem like an invasion which the government has the responsibility to address.
If there is no border and no screening of any kind, how do we keep known criminals including those that we already deported from creating more mayhem? We have enough criminals of our own making. Do we need to import more? What is unreasonable about that?
it is important to repeal those parts of the 1964 so-
called "Civil Rights Act" which interfere with private
property rights (leaving in place those which abolished
state-mandated segregation, of course). And to do away with the welfare state. And, of course,
the requirements for citizenship should be more
stringent than the requirements for entry. But the
government is not, properly, an abiter of ideas.
Still, there is one thing I don't think either
one mentioned. We could, privately, set up and
finance classes in citizenship. I don't mean the
government should do it. I mean that those who
believe in individual rights (and Objectivism)
could finance and set up associations to teach
proper Americanism to the new arrivals. I think
that this kind of thing (of course, this was pre-
Objectivism) was done in the past during big
waves of immigration.
1. Should we test immigrants for personality?
2. HOW would we test for personality?
Taking number 2 first, there are tests such as the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) which have been used for the purpose of filtering out certain personality disorders. I had to take one, followed by a visit to the shrink, to work at a nuclear facility. The shrink visit was particularly interesting, and he explained that the test (and the grading thereof) is actually quite complicated and sophisticated in its approach. I'm an engineer and in no position to vouch for the test's accuracy or usefulness, but there are tools to do what the author suggests.
But on the first question, I have some problems with the use of a test like this by the government. What traits are they going to screen for? A government may be interested only in people who follow their own ideology. They might screen out rugged individualists, and let in those who are easily controlled and believe whatever they are told. To put it today's terms, they might let in only those likely to vote Democrat (but it could go either way).
As far as a personality test merely to enter the country, that seems a bit extreme. To be a citizen, however, you should be willing to swear fealty to the Constitution of the United States and forswear all other allegiances you may have to other nations. I like the way Bobby Jindal put it the other day: you aren't an African American, or an Indian-American or a Mexican-American, you're just an American. No conditionals.
the immigration laws currently stress no record of criminal activity and some skill the amount depending on the country. The other way is deposit a million dollars. the rest of it is so mish mashed you can't tell the players without a score card.
hate crimes, racial or other forms of profiling and ideological screening are branches of the same start point rooted in the correct belief that while people are different some are more equal than others - depending on whose writing the current definition and what year, month or day it is.
People who are against liberty or the US Constitution but have taken no action in that regard are difficult to detect. It's easy for them to recite whatever shibboleth we set up to detect those who don't respect rights.