latest telephone poll taken by the California Governor's office, asked whether people who live in California think illegal immigration is a serious problem:
Now,,,having ALL the facts, we can understand the situation.
29% of respondents answered:
"Yes, it is a serious problem."
71% of respondents answered:
"No es una problema seriosa."
29% of respondents answered:
"Yes, it is a serious problem."
71% of respondents answered:
"No es una problema seriosa."
Hay muchas palabras que terminan con "ma" que son sustantivos masculinos.
Other words like forma are feminine, though, so it's a tax on memory for non-native speakers like me.
I'm not in CA, but I think it's a serious problem because it undermines respect for the law and creates an underclass. Any law that is supposedly important but that we consistently ignore is a huge problem.
Those old Greeks are all Dead White Men, to be ignored as useless. Aristotle, for example. California shows us the Future, where A is Not A!
Some counter-examples beyond "problema" are el dia, la mano, and la foto.
Here is some research: https://spanish.stackexchange.com/que...
Not so funny: How many poles like this never revealed who the respondents actually were..?
You know of all those films depicting the "future" USA: bleak countryside, cities in ruins, criminal gangs marauding and controlling the frightened and impoverished population left.
The democrats and the progressive left, of which California is a crying example, are driving the country to that end. It is not very far into the future: one or two generations.
I am glad I won't be around by that time.
A long time ago I read a story by Isaac Asimov where an alien race sent a ship to emit waves to psychologically mess up the human thinking process to crash their society and prevent them from getting off the planet. I don't remember the name of the story. It's working.
Cities were once useful for protection from the outside world but these days, the outside world needs protection from the cities.
Walls should built to keep everyone in and they are not allowed to vote in national elections or at least we could use the 3/5ths clause to equal out the situation.
All conscious, value creating and producing folks should leave the state and leave the useless left there to live with the consequences...
What ever is left of hollywood could film the whole thing.
It's all the fault of greedy white men who want to keep what they produce to support their own families without government assistance. Greedy white men who want to have a free fair exchange of goods produced by free people without government meddling. Greedy white men who just want to be left alone to be productive and raise their families in peace.
“How Capitalists Destroyed Venezuela”
https://www.accredited-times.com/2017...
Also “Lego Venezuela” will be in production featuring Lord Business, for the Children.
I've said before, "Socialist policies can appear to work as long as there is a strong enough capitalist base to support them." Venezuela killed the base and ran out of other peoples money.
See link https://goo.gl/images/yXaTmP
I recall a previous occupant of the WH who wasn't lily white - not his policies, not his propaganda, not his skin, yet the media has always presented him as the perfect lord of all he surveys. Lying scum.
Yes, I do too, but this understanding may only come long after I am dead...yet, I feel the drive to get it right and in a form inwhich, at least, future men might understand.
Strolling slowly towards the sun
Green-eyed lady, ocean lady
Soothing every raging wave that comes
Green-eyed lady, passion's lady
Dressed in love, she lives for life to be
Green-eyed lady feels life I never see
Setting suns and lonely lovers free
Green-eyed lady, wind-swept lady
Rules the night, the waves, the sand
Green-eyed lady, ocean lady
Child of nature, friend of man
Green-eyed lady, passion's lady
Dressed in love, she lives for life to be
Green-eyed lady feels life I never see
Setting suns and lonely lovers free
https://youtu.be/i_i7PKdQJU4
1971 as a 14 yr old my buddy and I hung out with this band for a week at the Minnesota state fair.
We knew this one by heart.
The show was about an auto shop in Texas that built/rebuilt American automobiles. Several of the guys were kidding around with each other and one of them of obvious latino heritage said that pretty soon white/anglo's will soon need a green card to work here. They all kinda laughed. But there are many indicators that he is right.
There is government but there is not much of it.
To Objectivists the only legitimate function of government is to protect rights.
Only? No. To protect the rights of who?
Quick answer, all those who are legally present. Those who have 'standing' respecting those rights. A person not legally present has limited or no legal rights.
Another legit function of government is to enforce contracts. Government has a contract with voters to protect borders and set rules determining who and how borders are to be crossed.
Agreed, much land is not private property, but non-private land is not free-for-all. Such land is managed by governments on behalf of and for citizens thus governments can make rules such as- if a non-citizen, then no automatic right to enter, if an illegal- no right to enter at all.
Since the act of immigration isn't a rights violation, it should be perfectly legal and the term "illegal immigration" doesn't even make any sense, let alone represent any kind of problem.
The only problem here, is the political illiteracy of the conservative movement, making the old-left, anti-immigrant policies mainstream again.
Objectivists should know better.
I suppose that is why lefties, socialist,.. want to take property right away.
Yep, which is in no way analogous to entering a country by crossing it's border, which is NOT "entering property you don't own" and preventing people from crossing the border IS a rights violation.
No, it's not. A countries border simply denotes the jurisdiction that a particular governments laws apply. Crossing said border violates no rights and so should be perfectly legal.
By your logic, since Objectivists support capitalism and the private ownership of ALL property, no one would be able to go anywhere without "breaking and entering".
"And that doesn’t even touch on the issue of national sovereignty, which is an integral element of limited government that Objectivism upholds."
Again, completely separate issue. I recommend Harry Binswangers latest post on his website which addresses this exact point, far better than I can.
"Ayn Rand was an immigrant, but she never stated or implied that there is an unrestricted “right” to cross a national border."
Yes she did. She was an advocate of what political illiterates today call "open borders".
"Nothing in Objectivist ethical theory supports such a “right”."
Then you need to learn what "rights" actually means. Objectivism is pro-"open borders," although that word is a packaged deal.
Of course people can access each other's property without "breaking and entering." They do it every day, with the property owner's permission, to engage in trade and other voluntary and mutually beneficial activities.
That's like asking "show me how somebody going about their business, on their way to work or something, doesn't violate rights. Like I said, you need to learn what "rights" actually are.
Also, the country and its border is not analogous to a property owner and his property, which you are still stuck on.
And an example of Ayn Rand's support for Open Borders is:
"You don’t know my conception of self-interest. No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. 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 borders had been closed? (Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, edited by Robert Mayhew, p. 25.)"
As to Ayn Rand’s statement on immigration, context is important here. Her remarks were made during a question-and-answer session, and were not intended to be the Objectivist last word on the subject. Furthermore, her response was to a questioner that was advocating restricting immigration because he claimed it would lower the country’s standard of living. Clearly this position is inconsistent with Objectivism. But it would be overreaching to declare that her remarks constitute an endorsement of unrestricted immigration, with no objective standards or safeguards in place. In The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand says, “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible.” An immigrant crossing a national border will, by definition, be attempting to access and use property that does not belong to him. Since he has no right to the use and disposal of other people’s property, he has no right to cross the border. (He can certainly do so with permission, but we’re talking about unrestricted entry here.)
Because that doesn't have anything to do with immigration which is not anyone accessing anyone's private property.
As to Ayn Rand, it's not really debatable. I gave you one example, you can find more.
You just don't want to hear the answer and don't seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals like "individual rights".
Even as a U.S. citizen, I don’t have the right to, for example, set foot on a U.S. military base without permission, even though I would not be “initiating force” by doing so.
Regarding Ayn Rand’s statement on immigration, of course it’s debatable. I presented my views on her statement above, and you’re free to discuss them or not as you wish.
One doesn't gain a right like that.
What does that have to do with immigration?
You're coming at this from the same point of view as politically illiterate conservatives, who have no theory of government and so have to try and determine policy through random means. In the case of immigration they arrive at their position by incorrectly deriving government policy from analogy to private citizens and their property. This is a false analogy as you have to have a theory of government to even have a theory of property rights and it doesn't work in reverse.
Objectivists on the other hand, DO have a theory of government and it is a rights protecting government.
That means only rights violations can be illegal and the act of immigration, crossing a border, is not a rights violation, so should be perfectly legal.
It's really easy.
As other posters arguing here, you don't have a correct understanding of the concept of "rights" and don't have a proper Objectivist theory of government.
You're ignoring it, even though I've explained it a few times now and are insisting on making nonsensical points, not based on rights or proper role of government.
Ayn Rand did not sneak across the border. She entered legally. Her family was persecuted and she would qualify for asylum.
But what you've missed, as have many posters here sadly, is that there is no such thing as entering a country "illegally". Only rights violations can be illegal and crossing a border is not a rights violation.
Call it fraud, Call it braking and entering, Call it trespassing...donesn't matter, we want it stopped!
Knock upon our door, ASK to come in and we will decide if your worthy enough to come in.
These are the politically illiterate arguments of conservatives.
Common courtesy, common sense, the right, honorable thing to do...regardless of the law or how it is interpreted.
Of course the real problem today is the Robbing Hoods.
Immigration only became an issue when the union movements wanted to cut down on cheap foreign labor.
Hence, "old left" is the source of the immigration issue.
Immigration does not violate rights and so cannot be "illegal".
This has nothing to do with national sovereignty and I recommend Harry Binswangers latest post on his website, which addresses this exact topic.
Please supply a link directly to what you wish me to read. A search "Harry Binswanger" came up with a long list and I'm not about to spend all night and all day tomorrow on this.
Edit add: I have not down voted any of your posts. I wish whomever did would state why.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
which referred to
http://www.hbletter.com/what-is-natio...
The article has serious logical and factual errors. See the 2nd para from bottom-
Philosophically, though, it doesn’t matter. .. ..
This para implies a conclusion by making a common statistical error, that of combining two disparate populations and using a statistic from the combined population as if it were meaningful. The populations are 1. legal, and 2. illegal, migrants. Quite different behavior.
You didn't search very hard did you?
In any case, a Gulcher named Lucky in this thread supplied the link before you even woke up and gave a decent response. I read the blog and agree with Lucky's assessment. Binswanger pulls his spin definition of sovereignty out of his butt and then attempts, poorly IMHO, to spoon feed it to the reader. Early on he admits that sovereign nations get to make their own laws and then wants to ignore the fact that immigration law is part of that legal system. He wants the reader to believe that the sovereign nation is initiating force against illegal immigrants when it is the illegal who is initiating the force.
His analogy with the Canadian tank force made me smile. I agree with stopping them, but I presume, according to Binswanger, a single Canadian citizen in his private tank should be able to roll across the border unquestioned. Multiply that by a million.
Gotcha.
Now on top of rejecting rights and a proper theory of government, you're also rejecting presumption of innocence.
Do you need a thought experiment because you don't want to accept that 1+1=2?
The fact is, Objectivist theory of government is that of rights protecting government and because immigration doesn't violate any rights, it should be perfect legal.
The term "illegal immigrant" is nonsense.
It's that easy.
You're just evading this and are pretending you're engaging in "thought experiments".
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/20...