Ayn Rand was an Illegal Immigrant
Posted by JohnConnor352 7 years, 9 months ago to Politics
Can anyone who staunchly opposes greatly increasing the numbers of immigrants allowed in here legally (including barring those who came illegally to have a path to citizenship) please respond to this article?
It is a few years old, but applies more even now than then.
It is a few years old, but applies more even now than then.
Population density forces limits and restrictions, the way blowing air into a balloon eventually stretches it to the breaking point. By then the new world starts replicating the practices of the old countries, repeating the power struggles, repressions, ideologies that had failed before and had given rise to the move to new territories, and the cycle repeats. Only there is no more new world to escape to. We have to invent an accommodation among all the individuals who still aspire to the founding principles within an ever more deteriorating culture.
It needs to be said, though, that more immigrants do not mean more unemployment. They actually stimulate more jobs to service and supply the extra population. They can enrich the culture with new creativity and skills. Eliminate the welfare state, and all will need to earn their own keep. People not habituated to a paternalistic government will actually take pride in their own productivity, the classic “work ethic”. “Find a need and fill it” is still the best motivator for initiative and inventiveness. New immigrants are a valuable resource to attain that goal.
That particular one I suspect is a trap brought out when needed or for some just waiting for the day you didn't wear steel soled jungle boots because -after all this is the desert..
Libertarianism is a political and collective control belief system based on political philosophy.
Objectivism is a system that allows and assists any individual to assess any belief system or any other, belief system be it political, religious, commercial, secular, moral or other wise - giveit an honest appraisal and determine it's validity or lack thereof, in short it's worth. The question asked and answered is it useful - comes after testing. The only grader or evaluator is the individual thinker using observation and testing.
First Law - Become conscious of yourself and your ability to think and reason.
Second Law - Continually observe the nature of all observed with two question in mind. Is it Useful or could it be useful?
Third Law Having worked out a system of morals, values, standards, and ethics apply it to the outcome of anything discovered under the 2nd Law.
Try it on any belief system especially the control systems of the collectives as a 'thing' whose nature can be studied and determined.
What follows is in two parts.
Did you follow what you determined to be true
Or what you determined to be false..
A side I'm now thinking about is the morality of using one choice to destroy the other choice and so far I have no moral problem assuming they are the only current choices, the act changes the parameters and the changed parameters will allow an ultimate win.
Evil versus flawed would be an example as it will allow the rejection of flawed at a later time while the reverse argues against that ability.
It also required the reverse of standard thinking and not using the greater evils definitions to determine the outcome.
A project under construction....
There is an Italian movie, "The Golden Door" that gruesomely portrays what first generation Europeans had to go through to get here and to stay. Their children fought WW II and built a great economy. My wife is a granddaughter and our children do not know or care where their relatives came from. The striving gives the country vitality and the reaching of a comfortable place in society is a reward. We, and our schools, need to teach this as a virtue and make sure that every citizen has a basic understanding of Capitalism. Not doing so is and will continue to be our downfall.
"We are enabling those that do not want to speak our language and observe our laws and customs by bilingual schools, signs, etc and by being politically correct. If you don't want to be an American, don't come."
"We want and need immigrants but it must be a win-win deal. We do not need people we feel sorry for. We don't need to take in people only because they have no other place to go. They do not need to be like us but they need to want to become like us."
Agreed and Agreed.
"see link"
Thanks for that. It was informative.
We are enabling those that do not want to speak our language and observe our laws and customs by bilingual schools, signs, etc and by being politically correct. If you don't want to be an American, don't come.
The immigration laws are a patchwork of amendments that are knee-jerk reactions to every situation we have encountered since the early part of the 20th century, see link: http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws
Rather than address modern immigration reform, we keep adding band-aids and playing political football. We want and need immigrants but it must be a win-win deal. We do not need people we feel sorry for. We don't need to take in people only because they have no other place to go. They do not need to be like us but they need to want to become like us.
We have a staggering unemployment rate right now - about 15% - and it's even higher the lower down the education scale you go. We have the people - what we don't have are the laws which allow them to work for what they are worth. Their skillsets aren't worth more than $5/hr, yet minimum wage laws insist that we pay them double that - and provide healthcare benefits!
"If I am allowed to come to your country, I will not be a burden. I will obey your laws. I will become an American. You must promise me that I will not be abused. I will be protected under your law and I will be allowed the opportunity to improve myself and my family."
Yes! 100% Yes! The problem, however, is that the majority of immigrants we have now aren't interested in this. They don't want to become Americans.
"Others are denied entry because of an unjust and shortsighted immigration law."
Please detail what portions of our current system you see being problematic. I will probably agree, I just want details rather than generalizations.
People still come to and enrich America under these terms. Others are denied entry because of an unjust and shortsighted immigration law. If they are illegals, they are not fully protected and they have been taught that the laws do not mean anything. These people are victims of a corrupt system but they establish a baseline of illegal activity that escalates to human and drug trafficking which leads to violence and reaction. Under this cloud we get a steady stream of problem immigrants, terrorists, criminals and moochers. Bad laws always lead to massive problems and unintended consequences.
The Democrat version of statist principles currently benefits most from this situation but if the Republicans can figure out how to gain this advantage they will in a heartbeat. All of our problems stem from a class of professional politicians that only care about their power and enrichment and a public that lets them get away with it. As long as we elect POLITICIANS to office this will only get worse. They and their cronies know this and they ALL will gang up to prevent anyone, not one of them from gaining access to power and revealing all the dirt behind the curtain.
The other problem is that the people of those times were coming to America because of the promise of a new life free from tyranny, where they could adopt American values. The people trying to come here now don't even want to be American and certainly don't want to adopt American values!
I have no problem with an immigration policy that really reflects the needs of our current country. But what it is being used for right now is neither cheap labor nor the American ideal, but for votes. The Democrats want to change the voting demographics and create a slave state to support them. What else do you call the current situation with all the illegals?
Ayn Rand did what she had to to escape a deadly totalitarian dictatorship and bypass mindless bureaucrats in the way, but she didn't "lie and bend every rule to gain entry" with "perjury" and the distorted tale from a 1984 speculative biography with no credibility -- and which doesn't mention the distorted story the article claims it does.
Ayn Rand knew she would be killed by the Soviets for her outspoken ideas and longed to come to America to make her own way, living by her own means under political freedom. Her family had been in contact with other family members in Chicago who had emigrated to the US decades before, and she arranged to visit them.
Her family found that the Soviet dictatorship was not allowing people to leave permanently if at all. The family in Chicago provided an affidavit that she would stay with them and that they would guarantee to finance her, which they did. After graduating from college as a history major she had enrolled in a Russian film production school to learn how to write scripts, and to get out of the country she had to tell the Soviets that she would return after researching the American film industry, which the Chicago family was associated with. That got her a six month passport, which was enough to get out of the Soviet Union.
She knew that she would possibly not be able to remain permanently in the US, at least at first, and anticipated possibly having to go to Canada and trying again later. As she left her family in Russia in early 1926 she had expected that the Soviet regime would not last, that she would be returning to visit her family, and that she would eventually be able to bring her whole family to the US after establishing herself and becoming self-sufficient.
In order to get into the US she had to obtain a visa from the US consulate in Latvia, which was still an independent country but pandering to the Soviets out of fear of being taken over. Upon arriving she learned that many White Russians were trying to permanently emigrate and were being denied. She had expected that if she couldn't get a visa for the US at all she would slip out out into Europe to avoid being forced back to Russia, but found that potential emigres were being closely guarded and she would not be able to do that.
It was not illegal to immigrate into the US, and the illegality under the Russian communists was irrelevant, but the bureaucrats were blocking those with permanent intentions. While talking to the agent in the US consulate, trying to convince him that she was just visiting in Chicago -- which she would have if necessary -- and without mentioning her longer term intentions, she noticed that the official paperwork falsely stated that she had a fiance in America, which record she had to counter and truthfully deny. A man had proposed to her in Russia, and in order to block the bureaucratic land-mine it occurred to her to tell the agent that she was coming back to him. She was one of the few able to get out at that time. On the way to the ship in France she turned 21 years of age.
She obtained the renewals she had to in the US, and did not have to go to Canada. There is no evidence that she married Frank O'Connor just to become a citizen, quite the contrary. She married Frank in 1929 and 2 1/2 months later got her green card, becoming a citizen in 1931. Obviously it would have made sense to time the wedding appropriately rather than ask for trouble with bureaucracy. Under the circumstances Ayn Rand would have had a right to do much more to save herself from the communist dictatorship and the mindless bureaucrats judging people by "intent".
None of this had anything to do with today's immigrants who support welfare statism or worse, with the expectation of government support in whole or in part, and illegally coming with the complicity of US collectivists looking to turn the US into a third world culture with imported votes to help pull it off.
Ayn Rand always supported the right to immigrate and to escape dictatorship in order to live an independent life in a free society. She opposed the notion of statist economic protectionism for "jobs" to block immigration, but did not support a cultural invasion to turn the US into a third world country with guaranteed welfare as enticement to illiterates demanding a collectivist government, sprinkled with terrorists accelerating the process.
I'd love to have open borders. However, I have a problem with hose who either want to come and not assimilate or, taking it a step further, want to attack. Yeah...pesky details...
I wonder if the liberals and progressives would obey that command seeing they have more in common with monkeys than with mankind.
PS...I got that little tidbit from my Dad who grew up in Boston.
every minute, and most vote D ... -- j
.
about robbery. . entering the u.s. and sucking at the
government teat illegally is robbery. . it is not a good
idea to encourage people to do this.
Rand did not do this. . she contributed by working
her ass off to benefit herself, and by consequence,
everyone else -- tremendously. . as I have heard
her history, she maneuvered her travel visa into
citizenship legally. . I am damned glad that she did! -- j
p.s. to your question, we do not have the jobs for
immigrants, right now. . the politicians have erased
them and left welfare in their places.
.
limits because I have a car which is safe at 100. -- j
.
.
Load more comments...