Illegals could throw the Electoral College towards Hillary
though this is Newsmax (grab your salt shaker) there is
an important fact here::: most of the Electoral College votes
are derived from gross census, which includes illegals. -- j
.
an important fact here::: most of the Electoral College votes
are derived from gross census, which includes illegals. -- j
.
Many Texas Democrats have said openly that their goal is to import enough voters to turn the state "blue". The Democrat Party is exploiting this constitutional opening to their gain.
Who is my enemy? All looters and moochers, period, regardless of where they come from, are my enemy. They outnumber me (and us). The so-called "bar" should be that no one taking a government handout should be allowed to vote.
I despise the accident of birth argument. My birth was no accident, and neither was yours. It was the celebration of life and freedom of a couple who looked forward to a great future. Were I to live in some hellhole, I would not be having such a celebration, and I would not be having children. I would have risen to be a success in any culture, by the application of my mind, even if that meant that I had to go off into seclusion to invent for myself. At this rate, I may have to do just that.
You say that you are dog tired of this debate. So am I. When a country has an open border, it is self-destructive. This is where Rand's arguments fail. Rand's statement of life is fine. If she and the rest of this forum realized that the same self-sustaining actions are also required for a nation that are required for an individual, then Objectivism would not be ultimately self-destructive.
I am ... gone.
Taken together, these statements by Ayn Rand strongly support the conclusion that no one can cross the border into an Objectivist country, unannounced and uninvited, without violating the property rights of one or more of that country’s citizens. He would be violating those rights simply by the act of crossing the border. This is a major reason why government border checkpoints would be necessary and appropriate even in a society based on Objectivist principles.
Ayn Rand never said that immigration to America (or any other specific country) is a right. She never said that everybody is entitled to immigrate, regardless of criminal history, health status (such as having an infectious disease), ability to financially support oneself (or obtain support from a sponsor), or ties to terrorists or dictators. She never said that the government has no right (and no responsibility to its citizens) to investigate the background or current status of persons wishing to immigrate. She never said that the U.S. government assumes an unchosen obligation to uphold and protect the rights of anyone who shows up here, regardless of circumstances.
Ayn Rand says, “A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens —has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government.” This statement strongly supports the conclusion that the U.S. government’s first duty is to its citizens, and protection of their rights and property takes precedence over protection of the rights of non-citizens in its territory (except for instances in which the government has specifically taken on such obligations, for example through the issuance of visas). Objectivism does not permit unchosen obligations, either by citizens or by the governments that such citizens create and maintain.
Considering everything we know about her personal history and political ideology, we can reasonably infer that Ayn Rand likely would have supported a system that would have encouraged legal immigration by anyone meeting reasonable qualifications following a thorough background check. However, she likely would not have supported a policy of wide-open borders without government checkpoints, especially since such a policy would have permitted unrestricted access to America by agents of the country from which she had escaped.
For the above reasons, I don’t agree that “Rand’s arguments fail.” I consider myself an Objectivist and have derived my conclusions from Objectivist principles and from Ayn Rand’s published writings and speeches.
must we own land, be male, be of european heritage --
but now, we must either be born here to citizens, or earn
citizenship through a process defined by laws ... ?
we've substituted laws for rules. . we still control voting.
as we should, very responsibly!!! -- j
.
.
.
As Zenphamy said; "Everybody has rights, or nobody has rights." When you decide to pick and choose, you have decided, by default, that nobody has rights.
Some freedom oriented ideas have been suggested, on this post and a few previous posts, that address the concerns you stated. Nobody has suggested "no borders". I don't have time for a lengthy debate these days but if you're truly interested in a pro-freedom solution you might look those up and do some research and some serious thinking.
I believe that we should have closed borders and
that gun control is being able to hit your target. -- j
.
Europe isn’t Islam’s keeper. It’s neither Europe’s nor America’s responsibility to rescue men fleeing Islam’s latest civil war.
To quote a British immigrant to the U.S.:
“I decline to join in the screaming and fainting. I take the old-fashioned view that a nation has the right to admit for settlement whomever it pleases, on any grounds at all, rational or otherwise. It’s up to the people of that nation and their legislators to say who they want to settle. It’s not up to foreigners.”
For a sarcastic take on “Where Should Syrian Refugees Settle?” see:
http://Vdare.com/posts/where-should-s...
We are looking at a group of people who do not assimilate well in the West. They are ugly and they commit crime – including terrorism – at a rate way above that of bona fide Europeans. I don’t see the evil of considering them as a collective. To echo the now absent-in-disgust jbrenner, Objectivism should not mean our self-immolation.
What of it? Germany’s population density is several times that of the U.S. Doubtless many people there welcome a decrease. For one thing real estate become more affordable.
For sure replacing Germans with fecund Muslims or whatever is not the answer to anything.
You claim Objectivist ethics is inconsistent with that position. I claim Objectivist ethics implies it.
One way to see the truth of my claim is to consider a distant future assuming 50 years of open immigration. Immigrants from Asia, Africa, Mexico, the Middle East, Central and South America have been pouring in for fifty years.
Tell me what England, Europe and America will be like then.
That concept is socialist/statist.
That concept is socialist/statist.
Assuming there was a wall that could limit access to 3 or 4 points upon which we put government checkpoints (assuming this was a legitimate function), we still have 3 or 4 private roads with private owners who, according to your reasoning may refuse entry. To anybody, for any reason. Just like you do in your house or your yard. That is unless, of course, you mean to say that once the government has approved the person then a private owner cannot refuse their entry. Would that still apply to your house? Your yard?
Does it not make sense, then, that the private ownership of public thoroughfares must be treated differently than the private ownership of your home, or your restaurant or other business?
A wall would not be practical for a border hundreds of miles long, since it would involve multiple property owners, all of whom would have to agree to build and maintain that wall. Individual property owners could build their own walls or enclosures if they wish.
Any government border checkpoint would involve an agreement between the government and the owner or owners of the road beyond that checkpoint, spelling out the terms of access for people crossing the border at that checkpoint.
Within a legal framework designed to protect lives and property, private covenants among existing property owners would govern the sale or lease of their property to prospective immigrants, and the uses to which such property could be put.
More later.
Also, we seem to be in agreement that the owners of roads would have different conditions guiding their ownership of the property than any other property owners. Speaking of roads in general, it follows, then, that the owner of a road could not suddenly change his mind and build a supermarket there instead. He would block everybody. Suddenly, his property rights are a little different than everybody else's. So where does this difference come from? And why is it right?
The owner of the road would have the same ownership rights as the owner of any other property. Restrictions on the owner’s use of that property would be by voluntary contract and agreement. In principle it would be no different from granting a long-term lease in exchange for monetary or other considerations. For example, if you granted someone the right to drill for oil on your property in exchange for a share of the profits, you could not suddenly decide to put a supermarket on that land if it would obstruct his ability to drill for oil. Most legal contracts of this scope are very precise as to what the owner and the lessee can and cannot do on the property. The owner retains ownership and the lessee acquires certain rights by virtue of the contract between them.
My goal is not to “seal” the border, it is to provide reasonable protection by the government for those whose property is adjacent to the border as well as those whose property is further inland. This could include measures such as responding to a mass influx of border crossings with an increased police presence; prosecution of trespassers with appropriate penalties, rather than merely sending them back across the border to try again; voluntary covenants among property owners to not allow the use of their property by those who have entered the country illegally; and any other measures within the scope of the rights of property owners in our hypothetical Objectivist country. This would not prevent 100% of illegal crossings, but it would render unlikely the type of mass migration that exists on the southern U.S. border today.
I would speculate that a considerable number of prospective immigrants without a history of crime, espionage or terrorism, would be offered jobs or access to property within an Objectivist country. The current immigration quota system would not exist, and immigrants would not be denied entry on the grounds that they were “stealing” jobs from local workers. Under such circumstances, the rate of immigration could conceivably be as high as, or higher than, the number currently coming across the southern U.S. border. And as long as reasonable efforts are made to allow productive people in and keep criminals out, that would be fine by me.
“If you are fleeing a war torn region, don't you think you would be in emergency mode too?”
First, it takes the Syrian’s (or whatever Third World country) point of view. I think the Germans (and Swedes and Israelis and ... Americans) should rather ask “Does this benefit me and my country?” Second, many (most I’d wager – most are young men, where are the woman and children?) so-called refugees are not fleeing a war torn region, they are fleeing a safe haven they previously had fled to, for example Turkey.
The first is the more important objection. We should base immigration on what benefits us instead of what benefits foreigners.
Actually it can be a useful word.
If what you said were true Ayn Rand would not be an Objectivist. See for example a post on this thread:
GaltsGulchOnline.com/posts/49ee0683/i...
How is defending one’s country from conquest by immigration collectivist? In what new sense do you use the word?
Better to create policy based upon the individual rights of all involved. We've already got the collectivist version.
The following is from Rand’s “The Art of Smearing.” She is writing about the term “isolationism” introduced in the 1930s:
------------------------------------
It was a derogatory term, suggesting something evil, and it had no clear, explicit definition. It was used to convey two meanings: one alleged, the other real – and to damn both.
The alleged meaning was defined approximately like this: “Isolationism is the attitude of a person who is interested only in his own country and is not concerned with the rest of the world.” The real meaning was: “Patriotism and national self-interest.”
What, exactly, is “concern with the rest of the world”? Since nobody did or could maintain the position that the state of the world is of no concern to this country, the term “isolationism” was a straw man used to misrepresent the position of those who were concerned with this country’s interests. The concept of patriotism was replaced by the term “isolationism” and vanished from public discussion.
------------------------------------
Today “collectivism” is a similar bait and switch. The alleged meaning of “collectivism” is not precisely defined but goes something like this: “the attitude of a person who thinks that only groups matter, never individuals.” The real meaning is: “Patriotism and national self-interest.”
“Collectivism” is a straw man used to misrepresent the position of those who are concerned with this country’s interests. Some here are trying to replace the concept of patriotism by the term “isolationism” so we won’t talk about it anymore.
You represent the word collectivism on this site to be not precisely defined. That couldn't be further from the truth.
collectivism: noun
"the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
• the theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state."
That definition is very well understood by the Objectivists of this site and is used very precisely to describe your sophistry. Trying to give a new definition (Patriotism and nation self-interest) to collectivism is to precisely describe your anti-Objectivism.
Then there are those use the word “collectivism” in a hazy, meaningless, undefined sense, such as “the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.” “Priority” is undefined, so you can bandy “collectivism” about where it makes no sense at all.
In this immigration argument “collectivism” is used as a smear word, and what is being smeared is patriotism, the preservation of one’s culture and country.
Foreigners make up a group, a collective. The nation’s government regulates the entry of each individual in that collective as one of the government’s proper functions.
Then there is the question of which foreigners, if any, should be allowed in and how many per year. Since a foreigner has no right of entry, he can be kept out for any reason, a crazy reason, or no reason. The principal moral issue is that a country’s citizens have the right to decide, just as they have the right to decide who is the country’s president and congressmen. One decision is no more collectivist than the other.
When Ayn Rand refers to “national self-interest” and “the country’s interest” with evident praise, you call it collectivist. I call it common sense.
Those who value America will reject the Third World en masse and forever. You can call that collectivist until you’re black in the face. The alternative is the end of America as we now know its fading remains.
Isolationist: noun
"a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries"
Then you say 'priority' is undefined. And agains:
Priority: noun (pl. priorities)
"a thing that is regarded as more important than another: housework didn't figure high on her list of priorities.
• the fact or condition of being regarded or treated as more important: the safety of the country takes priority over any other matter.
• the right to take precedence or to proceed before others: priority is given to those with press passes | [ as modifier ] : clear the left lane for priority traffic"
You continue to find words you claim are undefined, when in fact they have very exact and clear definitions. Rational and logically reasoned thought requires a clear and exact understanding of concepts, context, and words. Only the irrational and/or the sophist refuse to accept a clear and common usage of a word, and attempt to spread their nonsensical interpretations.
Then you purposely accuse me of calling AR's use of the phrases of "national self-interest" and "the country's interest" collectivist. I called you collectivist after I pointed out your mis-interpretation of AR's use and meaning of those phrases. A nation or country has no self-interest, it is not an entity, but is a creation of man.
While I prefer to not think of you as irrational, (though your comments have that appearance), I think your intent of disruption and interference of those on a site identified as Objectivist is clear and is sophistry of the worst kind.
... ARIwatch.com/AynRandOnWWII.htm
Your argument only serves to verify my previous statement. You have just stated that the "Real meaning" of collectivism is "Patriotism and national self-interest." This should tell everybody all they need to know about your position. Ayn Rand was very specific about the evils of collectivism. The page on collectivism in the "Ayn Rand Lexicon" is a mile long and easy to find. And while you may be very patriotic it is not the "national self interest" of America that you have in mind.
I think the analogy between “isolationist” and “collectivist” – the latter in the context of immigration – holds up quite well.
In any event, when Ayn Rand refers to “national self-interest” and “the country's interest” with evident praise, is she a collectivist?
You have repeatedly made it clear that your entire goal is to protect the purity of some definition of America that you have decided is best for everyone. You would use the might of the US government to pick and choose who may come here and you would choose based on race, country of origin, intelligence (measured how?), and, I would bet, physical attributes.
History has shown us where that ideology eventually leads to. And it begins with the willingness to place the rights of one group of people beneath the imagined rights of others.
Those are very attractive concepts for men of low self esteem that prefer to rely upon their associations rather than their own accomplishments and the ideas of their own mind.
Don’t replace critical thought with a list of approved words.
You insinuate that immigration patriots – as guys like me sometimes call themselves – are collectivists, in which case you are mistaken.
I guess I was too stupid to realize what the Democrats have been doing all of these years and why they fight stopping illegal immigration. In the near future, Democrat states will have so many Electoral College votes that there can NEVER be a Conservative or Republican ever in the White House. That is why the Democrat states are all sanctuary cities/states.
Count everyone in the census but only citizens for Electoral College!!!! I believe if this was changed, the Democrats would not be so happy about the influx of illegals.
States like California are going broke to get more Electoral votes but they don't care as long as the Democrats win!!!!
1.eliminate welfare. this is the perfect time in our History to bring it up
2. eliminate laws and agencies which feed on the War on Drugs
3. eliminate the IRS and income tax
that's a start. but gulchers in here, while giving lip service to some of these plans, are more content keeping "them" out
Have you ever posted: Foreigners have no right to U.S. citizenship because the U.S. has a welfare system. All I see is: Foreigners have a right to U.S. citizenship, period. Which is consistent, after all an authentic right doesn’t exist by whim of you and me.
But even if you answer number 1 (abolish welfare as a precondition to open immigration), I would still disagree. This what you might call “Milton Friedman argument” is suicidal. Even if the U.S. were an entirely free country, open immigration would destroy it in a single lifetime.
The flaw in the analysis is saying that the Electoral College vote is based, in part, on the census count of total population. The actual problem is that the apportionment of Congressman in the House is being unconstitutionally based on total population (including illegals), instead of on the total number of U.S. citizens.
The proposed solution to base the presidential vote only on the popular vote is totally wrong. Democrats have been advocating this for decades, as one of the things they want to move us away from a Constitutional Republic (based on federalism) and toward a typical Democracy.
Why did the Founding Fathers create the Electoral College to select the President? They wanted the President to represent both the will of the states and the will of the people. In our federated Republic, the U.S. Senate represents the sovereign states, with senators originally selected by state legislatures. The U.S. House of Representatives represents the people. The Electoral College represents the sum total of senators and representatives (plus 3 more for D.C.). It has a slightly more than 80% weighting towards the people (popular vote), with the rest representing the will of the states.
Democrats have opposed federalism from the beginning and have been working tirelessly to empower Washington D.C. at the expense of the state governments. Dems prefer strong centralization of power (which produces more corruption and infringements on freedom).
which I edited -- it postulates that solution, and follows it
through to a logical conclusion! -- j
http://www.amazon.com/Unsustainable-T...
.
.
------------------------------------------
Then there are the refugees.
I couldn’t help but notice but “they are all men”, said Trump, and “strong” ones.
“Why aren’t they back fighting for their country.”
-------------------------------------------
“All” is hyperbole, three-quarters would be more accurate:
https://RefugeeResettlementWatch.word...
.
is a dozen of Rand’s statements about World War Two. You’ll have a hard time proving that what comes from AR is anti-AR. By the way, I agree with her.
Show me a contradiction between individualism and the territorial integrity of a nation.
Please answer the question: When Ayn Rand refers to “national self-interest” and “the country’s interest” with evident praise, is she a collectivist?
In reply to GaltsGulchOnline.com/posts/49ee0683/i...
the contradiction is that individual rights are not the same as "territorial integrity" which is inherently a isolationist position which violates individual rights. A proper govt shall not violate the rights of man. the only exception, Rand argues, is in time of war. the war on terror, the war on culture are anti-concepts.
Dr. Ed Hudgin's on point:
http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...
where they choose." . that is not a right. . I may not
choose to live in your house or on your property
without your welcome.
and the "war on terror" is misnamed;;; it is a war on
terrorists. . and please, what is a war on culture? -- j
p.s. "national defense," the primary requirement
for a government, implies that property owners
assent to being part of a nation, a place with
geographic integrity = borders.
.
even if you say a "war on terrorists" that is the same thing-it is a war on TACTICS, not a nation. You cannot have a war against tactics. You are a vet, John. You over many of us, know this. How many terrorist organizations have we added to our "war" arsenal since 9/11? The vast majority of refugees are just that-political refugees fleeing wars we keep making with no winner deciding a proper govt and fighting the real dangers to any proper society-ideas. Keep focused on the wall and Bernie Sanders will win the election.
which mark the edges of private property. . the fact that you and I
gang together to own adjoining property which makes up a
nation, for the defense of which we hire a goon named
government, identifies a political union. . okay?
and I can have a war on anyone who might choose to
employ rape, as a tactic, or kidnapping, as a tactic;;; why not
terror as a tactic? . I know, the "war on poverty" will come up,
but that is a ruse for a campaign to seduce voters.
and yes, the wall is a stupid crutch to make up for stupid laws
which lure people here for the wrong reasons. . like welfare. -- j
.
Rand wrote nothing on immigration.
http://ARIwatch.com/AynRandOnImmigrat...
We’ve disagreed about this on another thread. I have nothing more to say about it. We’ll just have to disagree forever I guess.
The Edward Hudgins article begins “In Jeb Bush ... we finally have a Republican who recognizes that illegal immigration can be a highly moral act.” and goes down from there:
“Hispanics are a fast-growing portion of the population. Today nearly 17% of the nation’s citizens are Hispanic, [not counting illegals which also affects the Electoral College] with 30% [not counting illegals] projected by 2050.
“... [They] see the anger directed by many Republicans at illegal Hispanic immigrants as a manifestation of bigotry. It is not enough for Republicans to trot out elected officials with Hispanic names to try to show that they are not anti-Hispanic.”
Not enough to keep the Hispanics from voting Democrat. A mere insult is enough to make a Hispanic vote socialist?
Most – way most – Hispanics will vote socialist regardless. Pandering to them does no good at all.
GaltsGulchOnline.com/posts/49ee0683/i...
Another reason is that Newsmax is a neoconservative outfit.
That said, it might have something useful now and then. If necessary you can check it out somewhere else.
Gather data everywhere and compare..! :)
But truely...this is sick...
Are there any other countries we can go to and screw up THEIR election?
We need some social justice here!...again[sic]
“Illegal Immigrants Could Elect Hillary”
by Paul Goldman & Mark Rozell
http://politico.com/magazine/story/20...
You might want to avert your eyes from another photo of Hillary, LOL.
Copied and pasted this part from another comment.
"Of course we will have eliminated the income tax so that everybody will be included in the system, including immigrants. We will have put a stop to the war on drugs so that the criminal element is not drawn to us and we don't make criminals out of those already here. We will have eliminated welfare so they must support themselves when they come here. We will have eliminated the minimum wage so that the young and/or uneducated can get a job and get a start in life. We will welcome their hard work, productiveness and innovation. And we will have beaten the ever-lovin shit out of our enemies so badly that they will be afraid to show their heads out from under their rocks."
At this point, who else is left? At this point the amount of criminals coming across our nations border is miniscule compared to the number of criminals crossing state borders within the country. We've already decided no wall is necessary. At this point, why do we need armed guards at the gates? At this point we can respect the rights of ALL individuals. Including our own.
If I lived in the 19th century you could say I wanted to keep America pure. These days in some respects I want to turn back the clock. This position hasn’t been exposed by anyone, it has been proclaimed by me.
You say that any foreigner has a right to enter my country, and I only imagine that I have a right to keep him out. Obviously both rights cannot exist. Since the first alleged right – in effect meaning no borders – leads to the demise of America, the second right must be the correct one.
“History has shown us where that ideology eventually leads to.” Could you be more specific? Regarding your idea of the rights of foreigners, a useful historical analogy is the end of the Roman Empire, gradually undone by the at first peaceful immigration of barbarians.
In reply to http://GaltsGulchOnline.com/posts/49e...
Your position is not based on right, it is based on whim. We already have a system based on whim. It just doesn't happen to be your whim so you just want to adjust the details. Well, half the country doesn't like your whim. More than half or we'd have a sealed border already. Does that make them right? No it doesn't. Might does not make right. Only the rights of individuals can be a proper basis for a government policy. Rights that you would uphold or deny based solely upon the good or bad fortune of one's birth.
In particular, immigration restrictionists are leading us to ... what?
Instead of calling me these hard names please answer my question. Given the open borders you advocate, what will America be like after fifty years?
If you’re still around then, do you think your individual rights will be respected when 90% of the population is Third World and can vote and/or affect the Electoral College?
Of course we will have eliminated the income tax so that everybody will be included in the system, including immigrants. We will have put a stop to the war on drugs so that the criminal element is not drawn so heavily to us and we don't make criminals out of those already here. We will have eliminated welfare so they must support themselves when they come here. We will have eliminated the minimum wage so that the young and/or uneducated can get a job and get a start in life. We will welcome their hard work, productiveness and innovation. And we will have beaten the ever-lovin shit out of our enemies so badly that they will be afraid to show their heads out from under their rocks.
But all this requires a morality that absolutely rejects the violation of the rights of an individual.There is no riddle. We cannot get there from where you stand.
:)
ARIwatch.com/ImmigrationEnthusiasts.htm
modern immigrants will attain – and/or maintain – an Objectivist society.
One absurd contention followed by another.
In Ayn Rand's words; "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry."
This is what you have been pushing this whole time and trying to fault or blame Objectivism in the process.