13

The Founders on immigration policy

Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 3 months ago to Government
49 comments | Share | Flag

Madison was asked about the kinds of immigrants sought after:

“Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.”
SOURCE URL: http://www.ammoland.com/2015/12/immigration-and-our-founding-fathers-values/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 3 months ago
    From the linked story, Michelle Malkin intersperses her opinion with James Madison.
    In a 1790 House debate on naturalization, James Madison opined: “It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable?”

    No, not because “diversity” is our greatest value. No, not because Big Business needed cheap labor. And no, Madison asserted;

    “Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.”

    Madison argued plainly that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”
    Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2015/12/immig...

    On this issue, I agree with James Madison over Objectivism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
      I think that Objectivism argues that people should be productive and add value and I agree with that principle. I think the part where some may disagree is on the principle of border control in the first place. And I definitely disagree with many who claim that Objectivism necessitates an "open-borders" policy. I stand with Madison and the Founding Fathers on this one.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 3 months ago
        According to many in this forum whom regard themselves as Objectivists (and I don't disagree with them on that), the right to travel supercedes the principle of value for value exchange. With that assumption, then there is no reason for a nation to exist. Wouldn't it be ironic if the upholding the right to travel of non-residents resulted in the dimunition of the one nation that people with Objectivist values would actually want to travel to? That is the contradiction that has been at the center of Gulch debate in 2015.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 3 months ago
          Sorry for the late entry into this, but I have not come across in any of Rand's writings (that I've read) where she or Objectivism calls for open borders and no restrictions on immigration. Just like you may not want thresspassers on your property, the society may choose not to have thresspassers on its land.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by edweaver 8 years, 3 months ago
      This makes sense and here is something I cannot get my mind around.
      Why would this not be considered an Objectivist position? Can you or someone make this make sense?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 3 months ago
        The question comes down to whether the right of individual citizens to delegate immigration decisions to the nation they helped found or defend or protect has any standing vs. the right of a non-resident to travel. Travel to me is one thing. Immigration is another.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by edweaver 8 years, 3 months ago
          I have to agree, travel and immigration are separate issues.

          I'm coming at it from an employers perspective. I asked myself, is there any difference in letting someone into our country and letting someone work for my company? Seem to me the answer is no. Objectively, I would not hire someone who would not provide a value to my company and especially would not hire them if their intent was to destroy it. Why would that be any different to a country? As far as the travel, I could give a tour to a potential hire but would not even consider it if I knew for a fact that they wanted to do harm to me. Is that not Objectivist? If not where an I wrong?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 8 years, 3 months ago
            No, that is not the Objectivist position. The question is not answered by either what a business would do or what "travelers" want. A country and the defense of individual rights by government are not a business, which is within a country and subject to its proper laws.

            Ayn Rand defended the right to immigrate, as a basic human right, in the context of normal life and normal economic affairs in a free country, and that is all she said about it. Specifically she properly opposed blocking people from coming to the country out of protectionist fear that they would compete.

            There is much more to the broader question of immigration as a legal principle, especially with today's problems, which were not an issue in 1973 and which Ayn Rand was not asked about when she spoke about it in a brief response to a question about protectionism for economic interests. She was not discussing hoards of religious primitives coming to this country for welfare and/or the spread of sharia law. She simply rejected using force to prevent another human individual from peacefully pursing his own economic interests by moving from one country to another.

            She defended the right to immigrate based on the rights of the individual, which apply to every human being peacefully pursuing his own interests. She did not base it on a "right to travel", which is a derivative principle. "Travel" is only one aspect of freedom of physical action and movement, which is a consequence of the right to live here in a material reality, and does not require much discussion. She did not publicly discuss a philosophy of a "right to travel" at all, let alone as a basis of immigration. (She did once disparage the leftist hippie mentality for objecting to the legal necessity of passports.)

            1. Her sole public statement on immigration was in a spontaneous answer to the question on protectionism at her 1973 Ford Hall lecture on censorship. I don't know if the question period is included in the recording, but you can listen to the recording at https://estore.aynrand.org/p/16/censo....

            The edited transcript is in Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of her Q&A, edited by Robert Mayhew, 2005, p. 25. The question addressed there is: "What is your attitude towards immigration? Doesn't open immigration have a negative effect on a country's standard of living?"

            The topic is expanded on by Leonard Peikoff in two of his podcasts:

            2. "What is the proper government attitude toward immigration?" 7/5/10, 10 min http://www.peikoff.com/2010/07/05/wha...

            3. "You said that if a country had laissez-faire it should not control immigration. What if New Zealand, with a population of 4.5 million people, had laissez-faire? Would it be obligated to accept all immigrants, even if that resulted in its becoming Muslim and having Sharia imposed?" 9/13/10, 4 3/4 min.

            Perhaps this will put to rest the false alternatives that either the country should restrict immigration on the conservatives' collectivist grounds of what is best for the "economy" versus the misrepresentations that "Objectivism" promotes "open immigration" no matter what -- including terrorists, welfare statists, and supporters of sharia law -- based on a "right to travel" in border anarchy or anything else.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
            I don't think you are in disagreement with either myself or jbrenner. There are others, however, who have argued a "right to free travel" and that such a right supercedes the responsibility of a nation to control its borders and protect its citizens. It doesn't make sense to me, but one of them can chime in if they choose.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by edweaver 8 years, 3 months ago
              No, I'm not in disagreement with either of you. I would be one that believes in free travel to an extent but cannot justify the argument in cases where the traveler intends to do harm. I feel that meets an Objectivists standard. I asked the question to see if someone can poke holes in my argument. Enough holes to make my logical brain buy it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
                I think that's a fair standard.

                Myself, I start from a basic property rights standpoint. If you do not own the rights to a particular property or item, you may only use such as a guest by permission of the owner. That includes crossing "public" properties such as roads, sidewalks, etc. As a citizen, we hold property rights by virtue of ownership - even in cases of public property. We have joint rights of ownership according to the agreed-upon communal usage of the property. However, if one is not a party to that ownership agreement, one is then relegated to "guest" status. That guest may be granted conditional use of communal property pursuant to their status as a guest, but they retain no right of use in any amount whatsoever. The only granting of right of use comes by ownership - either by outright purchase or by inclusion into the group of owners through citizenship.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 8 years, 3 months ago
                  Citizenship is not "ownership" and the right to use public thoroughfares is not (properly) up to the whims of government officials. "Travel", in this context, is simply a means to get from one place to another where you have a right to be. A civil right to be in a country is not based on a "right to travel".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
                    But you have no right to be on property you do not own. It is as simple as that. All the rights we have of action originate from one simple axiom: self-ownership. It starts there. If you do not own it, you do not have right of control. That includes travel over land you do not own: it's called trespassing for a reason. There is no civil right to travel and no civil right to occupy space on land you have no ownership claim to. To claim otherwise is to assert ownership over someone else's property - to assert theft. There is no civil right to "be in a country". There is simply the right of ownership: joint or individual. Citizens have a right to use common spaces because they are part-owners. Non-citizens have no such privilege and must rely on the grace of citizens/owners for use of public spaces just as if it were private land.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 7 months ago
                      Of course there is a civil right to travel. Immigration laws are not about protecting private property and "public spaces" are not private property.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ prof611 8 years, 3 months ago
        I have argued before that property rights supercede freedom of travel. And other people have disagreed with me. Where are they today? Seems like they are tacitly agreeing with me by not entering this discussion.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 8 years, 3 months ago
    the issue is not "immigration" like the fascist demo/repubs/media wants you focused on...it is the "trojan" horse...and there is a cancer inside the horse...

    arm yourself with knowledge of what islam/muslim represents...intolerance, hate, and destruction...read "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali...go to her website...www.ayaanhirsiali.org...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 3 months ago
    As ever, the Founders had it right. Obama is the Anti-Founder. Some folks attribute his actions to inexperience or ignorance. I doubt it. His vision is of a unfair, prejudiced and guilty America whose usurpation of global commodity happened by the occupation of a land that was able to produce exportable product, thus enriching the country. A Republic whose wealth was created on the backs of slaves and lower class labor. In Obama's eyes, America has nothing to be proud of. He will grudgingly provide us visually with the minimum display of patriotism, but only after voices are raised in protest and his advisers tell him he'd better comply.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 3 months ago
      FDR really did most of the anti-founding. Obama seems to idolize him and doesn't seem to have very many new ideas of his own, even if he does use Alinsky's tactics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 3 months ago
        Obama and FDR have much in common. Their blatant hatred of Jews, and their social reformation of America. FDR, however was in love with the British, and precipitated the USA entry into the war to help Churchill by fostering the Pearl Harbor attack. It is interesting that Wilson, Kennedy, and Roosevelt, are all revered by democrats but if looked at objectively, were failures as presidents. Obama, however, is such an enormous failure that I doubt if he'll get into the revered category. But then, who knows? There seems to be no limit to the irrationality that the suitors to power can sink into.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lucky 8 years, 3 months ago
          fostering the Pearl harbor attack- well, all this time I have been under the impression the attack was by Imperial Japan ..
          I expect promulgators of this conspiracy theory to now produce evidence of the Japanese military leadership saying 'I was under orders, US President Roosevelt fostered me to do it'.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 3 months ago
            No conspiracy theory. Roosevelt was aware of Japan's plan to attack Hawaii in January of '41. Plus, Japan was in dire need of raw materials most of which were obtained from the USA. Roosevelt cut off their supply, thus putting pressure on their current regime, making it unable to produce. The only thing he was unaware of was the date of the attack. Also I can list all his anti-Semitic actions which led to the deaths of hundreds, perhaps thousands of Jews.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 3 months ago
          Obama is revered by the Democrats I've talked to. They'll simply handwave (ignore) anything said about his failures. I can't understand why anyone would see things that way. Economic reality just doesn't exist to these people.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 3 months ago
            There's no need to delude the already delusional. Many of them like the idea of a black President so much that they are willing to blank out every horror perpetrated by BHO upon the USA.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 8 years, 3 months ago
    A very bright woman she is. outstanding article with information I was unaware of.

    bh0 does not belong because he has no respect for you and I, etc. I also submit there are many who walk the halls of congress who do not belong any more than him. Yes he 0 is a catalyst working on the destruction of the nation but he sure does have a lot of help.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dennis55 8 years, 3 months ago
    I don't see a conflict or a "Madison v. Objectivism" issue. The physical Gulch had "border control" and appears to have invited producers and screened out the looters and moochers.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
    Exactly. A bit of common sense. I dont want a flood of low lifes with little education and drive to succeed to come to the US and get welfare. I want to welcome smart, educated, entreprenurial, rich, or otherwise a benefit to our society. This does NOT include refugee muslim Syrians for sure.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 3 months ago
    The article does an excellent job of establishing that at least some of the founders did not believe in unregulated access to their new country. But that is all it does: the conditions that the founders observed are 200 years out of date. They do not pertain to us today, other than as wise words taken in context. We do not now have 3000 miles of territory to fill; they did.

    On the topic of religion-based screening of immigration, it is not necessary. All you need to do is apply the general immigration rules, taking the usual amount of time and voila! you have no immigration problem. The Problem is in trying to stuff thousands of people (Mexican or Syrian) through the immigration process in a hurry. Don't do that!

    There is a subsequent problem of whether or not the newcomers integrate into the American culture. What is the answer to that: Law. They have to abide by the same laws as everyone else (no sharia) and since English is the Common Tongue of the US, and they have to speak it to become citizens...that is the way it is. Insofar as keeping their own culture distinct is concerned: I Like Oktoberfest.

    Jan, xenophile
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
      I didn't really get the feel that they were advocating to bring people for the sake of warm bodies, however. Madison made it pretty clear that they wanted able bodies.

      I agree with you on the application of immigration law and processing and how one set of rules will apply. What I found is interesting is that we already have the immigration laws on the books which require legal immigrants to integrate into society. The problem is that those laws have to be enforced, and the current administration is loathe to do that. You point that out well in your last paragraph.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ FredTheViking 8 years, 3 months ago
    Let me state Madison point in my own and then I will offer my own point. Madison is saying that the US should only allow immigrants into the country that makes us richer and stronger.

    One could argue that simply having more people will make us richer and stronger regardless of who let into the country. Granted we would let in some trouble makers but overall most people are good and will serve their community well.

    I think a better principle in recognizing the basic human right on mobility. The principle being any human has the right to live and work wherever they want as long they respect other people rights. Our immigration policy should reflect that principle.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
      "One could argue that simply having more people will make us richer and stronger regardless of who let into the country."

      And such an argument can easily be debunked simply by looking at the costs of illegal immigration today. Welfare, education, and the medical system all suffer disproportionately.

      "The principle being any human has the right to live and work wherever they want..."

      No, they don't actually. They have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, but there are no guarantees - implied or otherwise. People have the right to control and apply themselves, but how they apply themselves is a subjective decision.

      "...as long they respect other people rights."

      And that is the key. We must all respect the rights of others if we expect ours to be held sacrosanct. That includes the right to property - beginning with ourselves.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ FredTheViking 8 years, 3 months ago
        First off, I should have qualified my arguments. The first point was meant to be in general. What I meant was more people more economic activity means everybody benefits. Obviously, The welfare state muddies the water on that point.

        For the second point, I was merely stating a principle from which government policy should follow from. Obviously, people who immigrate to the United States need to be vented and it would hurt to roll back the warfare state at the same time...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 3 months ago
    This is what progressives and cry baby liberals do not get or does it scare the pants off of em.
    It is NOT a natural right for anyone to become an American...we are a far cry from that now but not to late to change.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 8 years, 3 months ago
    When it comes to the issue of Muslim immigration to this country we need to apply the context of: "What do you get when you mix food and poison?"
    Or, in the Christian context: "Don't throw your pearls before swine."
    If we allow Islamists to freely invade (and that's what it REALLY is) we are going to lose this country and probably civilization. These people live to kill and live to die. This is the religion of anti-life or in Christian terms: Anti-Christ.
    Get them out and keep them out and we will live in relative peace.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo