Open Borders - Bill Clinton
Posted by j_IR1776wg 7 years, 1 month ago to Government
The following is quoted from Breitbart.
"Clinton asked his audience to consider the two choices the “us vs. them” sentiment fosters, asking, “Are we going to live in an us and them world, or a world that we live in together? If you got that, in every age and time, the challenges we face can be resolved in a way to keep us going forward instead of taking us to the edge of destruction.”
The ex-president’s comments are clearly aimed at Donald Trump, though Clinton didn’t utter Trump’s name during the event. Critics of President Trump have accused him of pushing a policy of “nationalism.”
These statements may not be surprising from a figure who has called for wide open borders.
On that terrible day in 2001 that radical Muslim terrorists launched the most devastating attack on the U.S.A. in history, Bill Clinton was in Australia giving a speech before a group of businessmen. In comments made only ten hours before the towers fell in New York, Bill Clinton said he felt the wold would be a better place if there were no national borders."
I wonder how many in the Gukch agree with him?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governme...
"Clinton asked his audience to consider the two choices the “us vs. them” sentiment fosters, asking, “Are we going to live in an us and them world, or a world that we live in together? If you got that, in every age and time, the challenges we face can be resolved in a way to keep us going forward instead of taking us to the edge of destruction.”
The ex-president’s comments are clearly aimed at Donald Trump, though Clinton didn’t utter Trump’s name during the event. Critics of President Trump have accused him of pushing a policy of “nationalism.”
These statements may not be surprising from a figure who has called for wide open borders.
On that terrible day in 2001 that radical Muslim terrorists launched the most devastating attack on the U.S.A. in history, Bill Clinton was in Australia giving a speech before a group of businessmen. In comments made only ten hours before the towers fell in New York, Bill Clinton said he felt the wold would be a better place if there were no national borders."
I wonder how many in the Gukch agree with him?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governme...
Bill Clinton has no concept of borders, or even propriety and decency. To value his opinion on any such is sheer foolishness.
Anything that comes out of his mouth should be reversed.
As Ayn Rand put it in 1973: "No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or force, which is what you're suggesting [in the question 'doesn't open immigration have a negative effect on a country's standard of living?'] You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living -- which isn't true, though if it were true, you'd still have no right to close the borders. You're not entitled to any 'self-interest' that injures others, especially when you can't prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can't claim that anything others may do -- for example, simply through competition -- is against your self-interest. But above all, aren't you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn't be alive today if our border had been closed?"
Every individual no matter where he is born has the same moral rights -- but they do not include the kinds of mass illegal threats we see today but which were not an issue in 1973 and not related to the question she answered.
This was previously discussed on this forum at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
You are also not obligated to consider the 'self-interest' of others that injures you.
Please explain how I have suggested immigration has a negative effect on a countries standard of living.
Many conservatives, including Mark Levin, are promoting restricting immigration for economic protectionism in the name of 'our nation has the right to act in our best interests'. The question Ayn Rand answered in 1973 was asked at The Ford Hall Forum.
I know we have a disaster related to the flood of illegal aliens and border control. I want the govt to know who is here that is not a citizen . If that is what Levin said it is news to me as I have no thoughts to him or who he is.
When you say in the context of opposing the Clintons' advocacy of "open borders" that a nation has a right to and should act in its own interests just like any other nation it only emphasizes the ambiguity in both what you mean by self interest and what immigration policy you had in mind, which you didn't specify, and which is why I wrote "It depends on what you mean by self interest". Look at all the things nations around the world do in the name of their own interest. You can't take the meaning of self interest for granted, which is why Ayn Rand had to emphasize the distinction when she answered the question in 1973. So do we. She had to begin with "You don't know my conception of self interest".
You falsely claimed that I said " 'doesn't open immigration have a negative effect on a country's standard of living?'] You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living -- which isn't true, though if it were true, you'd still have no right to close the borders. You're not entitled to any 'self-interest' that injures others, especially when you can't prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can't claim that anything others may do -- for example, simply through competition -- is against your self-interest. But above all, aren't you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn't be alive today if our border had been closed?""
A Lot of speculation of what I think and innuendo that is UN warranted.
The Clinton open border policy and the conservatives' protectionism are a false alternative. Just saying we have a right to control our borders isn't enough. It doesn't say what self interest means and it doesn't say what immigration policy should be based on it.
I will stand by my statement.
Being born in a country with no citizenship would make no sense. But there are many options for establishing a civil right to vote as if it is an intellectually serious matter.
That's why they want to eliminate Property rights...which includes your Person!
There is no "one size fits all" and will not likely be for a very long time...if ever.