Sign in to follow this  
Peter

Immigration

Recommended Posts

I have in no way convinced myself on this issue, but I refuse to let others do my thinking for me so I will start this thread on immigration. Barbara Brandens funeral may have made a lot of us do some introspecting. I wonder about who showed up and who did not. Did her cousin Leonard Peikoff ever discuss her death?

Ed Hudgins, the director of advocacy for The Atlas Society wrote on Objectivist Living:

. . . . the choice of most immigrants to come here illegally was morally right and should be applauded. In most cases, poor Latinos face two choices: 1) Stay in their own countries, wallowing in poverty, watching their families suffer, with little opportunity for prosperous, happy lives; or 2) Seek the best life possible for themselves and their loved ones by entering the United States illegally . . . . Sneaking across the border breaks an American law. But illegals dont limit the liberty of others when they come here to offer their labor with willing employers . . . . in the same circumstances as most illegals, most Republicans and conservatives would do exactly the same thing! In the spirit of America, theyd say, To hell with idiot America lawmakers and paper-pushers. Im coming here to make money! Yes, welfare state transfers muddy the issue. Yes, theres a lot to sort out concerning those who have been here for decades. But Republicans and conservatives should get beyond denouncing amnesty and seek ways to welcome those who want to come here and stay in this country that was, after all, founded by immigrants.

end quote

Hurrah Ed! Well said. Youre darn right I would sneak across the border to better my life. I sneak across the border into neighboring Delaware to avoid paying the Maryland sales tax. If a person works here and obeys the laws then their self improvement is a noble cause. I seem to remember Ayn Rand had relatives in America who sponsored her. Yet, I view the idea of no restrictions on immigration or an Objectivist Government, and the abolition of taxation as Platonic ideals. They could be a reality . . . someday . . . when Government and the State wither away, when the world is at peace, when all humans respect individual rights and when Atlantis (or Eden) is once again found on earth. But not today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if an Objectivist does not want unrestricted immigration it is very easy to save one’s breath, and go along with the pragmatic Objectivist position that as long is there is a welfare state and services like national defense that are financed through taxes already paid, then unrestricted immigration is not the correct policy. As things are, it would be unfair and impracticable to have freeloaders or terrorists enter the United States.

Some opinions of other Objectivists.

From: BBfromM@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: Ayn Rand and immigration

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:17:00 EST

I was asked what Ayn Rand would say about immigration to America today. I could not recall the subject being discussed with her, although I was reasonably certain what she would say. I asked Nathaniel if he remembered any discussion of immigration. Here is his response, with which I agree:

<< Like you, I have no recollection, although I am fairly certain what she would say. She would say, I think, that in a true laissez-faire society there should be open immigration, but that cannot be justified in a welfare state for obvious reasons. As with so many issues, there is no "ideal" answer for problems arising in a mixed economy.>>

Barbara

From: "Richard Lawrence" <RL0919@yahoo.com>

To: <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Ayn Rand and immigration

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:02:18 -0800

The new book _Facets of Ayn Rand_ by Charles and Mary Ann Sures includes a passage that seems relevant to this discussion. The book is in interview format, and includes the following exchange on page 108:

--begin quote--

ARI: Can you give a specific example of when she [Rand] responded angrily to a question?

Mary Ann: Someone asked her for her views on immigration, if she thought it was a good thing. And she got indignant immediately at the very idea that anyone might be opposed to immigration, that a country might not let immigrants in. One of the things she said in her answer was, "Where would I be today if America closed its doors to immigrants?" [...] In her answer, she was defending people who were seeking freedom and a better life. And I think she was assuming that immigrants would be like she was -- ready and able to make their own way, accepting help if voluntarily given by individuals but not expecting government handouts. [...]

--end quote--

The immediate topic being discussed in _Facets_ is Rand's temper, but the specific example used presumably indicates Rand's general views on immigration. (For brevity, I have omitted a few sentences from the response. These are marked above with the bracketed ellipses.)

Richard Lawrence

end quote

From: BBfromM@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Immigration in the eyes of a Russian immigrant

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:21:33 EST

Of course she believed in free immigration and ending the welfare state. Her point here -- in a question period -- was that in a welfare state, totally free immigration was not reasonable. She also would have said, for instance, that there should be no Social Security -- but that in a welfare state, it cannot be ended all at once because people have counted on it, with good reason, and have not been able to prepare financially for their old age; Social Security would have to be ended in stages and with plenty of warning given. But this, like the immigration issue, has nothing to do with choosing the lesser of two evils.

Barbara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the “ideal world” does even having immigration laws violate an American citizen’s right to freely associate with someone from another country? Is unfettered immigration the lesser of two evils? Perhaps in the abstract but not in daily life.

Ayn Rand wrote in the Virtue of Selfishness p. 94:

The concept of a 'right' pertains only to action -- specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a ~positive~ -- of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own ~voluntary, uncoerced~ choice.

end quote

Bill Dwyer responded to those quotes by writing:

Thus, according to Rand, one's right to freedom of action cannot be violated even to prevent one from being a "free rider," i.e., from being an indirect beneficiary of police protection that other citizens have chosen to pay for. On the contrary, to force one to pay for such protection in order to ~prevent~ one from being a free rider is to make one a FORCED RIDER -- an unwilling buyer of something that one has declined to purchase.

In her essay "Government Financing in a Free Society," Rand proposes that government financing be arranged so that wealthy individuals would have an incentive to pay voluntarily for insurance protecting their contracts.

"[T]he cost of such voluntary government financing," she notes, "would be automatically proportionate to the scale of an individual's economic activity; those on the lowest economic levels (who seldom, if ever, engage in credit transactions) would be virtually exempt -- though they would still enjoy the benefits of legal protection, such as that offered by the armed forces, by the police and by the courts dealing with criminal offenses. These benefits may be regarded as a bonus to the men of lesser economic ability, made possible by the men of greater economic ability -- ~without any sacrifice of the latter to the former~. (VOS, 119)

There is, according to Rand, no breach of morality or rights from allowing people of lesser ability to "free ride" off people of greater ability, who have a correspondingly greater incentive to pay for protection of themselves and their assets.

end quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that as in introduction I now state that I disagree with the official Objectivist position on immigration.

In one sense the citizens of the United States own all Federal lands. The Federal Government works FOR its citizens, and every citizen in America is rightfully expected to respect the Constitution and its laws. Non - citizens are trespassing unless they are invited here. What if we had open borders and boatloads of Chinese communists settled here? Rational people would call that an invasion. I maintain that an uninvited, illegal immigrant is either trespassing on private property or on federal land.

The laws of the United States of America start at the borders of its nation. A nation is a group of people within a geographic location who share common customs, laws, history, and language. Our United States has a government constituted on individual rights, WITHIN A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, for all time. The United States or an Objectivist Government has a monopoly over the retaliatory use of force conferred upon it by the consent of the governed. It permits various jurisdictional agencies within its territory, as long as those agencies uphold the Constitution guaranteeing individual rights. It does not permit individuals or agencies within its territory to be at variance with any provisions of the Constitution, or laws enacted under the Constitution, including our immigration laws.

If the United States had no immigration laws, then it would be an anarchist state. An illegal alien in America is standing on someone’s property and I do not want them to be there. Illegal aliens are initiating force. They are gaining a value from its owners without consent. If the immigration service removes an illegal alien it is the retaliatory use of force, so when an individual decides to cross into the United States from another country, without permission, he is declaring by his very first action:

“As I illegally put myself into the territory of the United States, I am taking myself outside the legal and moral authority of the Constitution of the United States as soon as I step across its border. I hereby declare this border null and whatever section of the United States I inhabit, will be my territory and I will act there as I see fit.”

The final authority to make laws must be within the hands of the Federal Government. If allowed continued existence, the competing individuals, armies, or governments may then create laws that are contrary to the constitution of the land. So, it is a principle of self defense to stop illegal immigrants, anarchists or unauthorized law writers, from remaining here as lawbreakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ideal of an Objectivist, Capitalist Government with completely unrestricted immigration would only be sustainable if all governments and all the people in the world recognized individual rights. They don’t. We would still need borders even if America had a minimalist government. Restrictions on immigration, even in a more ideal situation, would be necessary to defend individual rights, and the political, economic, and military integrity of America.

Under an ideal Objectivist Government there would be little public property, perhaps a White House, and a place for the Legislative and Judicial branches to meet. There would be no public roads, few military bases, and no national parks. So if there were unrestricted immigration in a land nearly free of public property where would immigrants legally go without permission? They would have no right to be anywhere because nearly “everywhere” would be private property. You would get off a ship onto a private dock. You would walk across a border onto somebody’s ranch. You would sky-dive onto someone’s rooftop.

What if you were in charge of security at a high rise office building? You would have a list of all who enter. They all have sponsors. Those entering may be screened for metal objects like guns or bombs. You are a guard at an airport. Passengers are searched and profiled. They must have been approved for the flight and they all have tickets. Should security at our nation’s borders be laxer than that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

What if you were in charge of security at a high rise office building? You would have a list of all who enter. They all have sponsors. Those entering may be screened for metal objects like guns or bombs. You are a guard at an airport. Passengers are searched and profiled. They must have been approved for the flight and they all have tickets. Should security at our nation’s borders be laxer than that?

There is also the matter of checking immigrants for communicable disease. Even if we decide to let people in, we don't have to have their germs.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Peter.

You have been cooking today. Smoking hot.

:)

btw - I tend to agree with you on immigration. I think it's a thorny issue since it is played out in the real world of a mixed economy government and lowdown political agendas aimed ultimately at overthrowing the government. In an ideal world, I would have no objection to immigration without restrictions.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Peter.

You have been cooking today. Smoking hot.

:smile:

btw - I tend to agree with you on immigration. I think it's a thorny issue since it is played out in the real world of a mixed economy government and lowdown political agendas aimed ultimately at overthrowing the government. In an ideal world, I would have no objection to immigration without restrictions.

Michael

If I lived in an apartment house and would object if any of my co-tenants buzzed in just any old person who wrong the door bell.

What about immigrants with contagious diseases? I would insist on a period of time in a hold facility for every would be immigrant during which it can be determined they are bringing in a harmful contagious disease.

In order for any organism to survive it must have a boundary that separates its inside from harmful elements outside. That applies to both biological cells and human societies. There must be some separation between what is inside and what is outside.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob wrote:

If I lived in an apartment house and would object if any of my co-tenants buzzed in just any old person who rang the door bell . . . What about immigrants with contagious diseases?

end quote

What if some old geezer pushing a shopping cart rang your bell after being wrongly let into your building had hepatitis, whooping cough, swine flu, and Ebola? Would that royally piss you off? Sure, and the same goes for an immigrant, in an ideal Objectivist society, with completely open borders.

My second major point on this “Immigration” thread is the wrongness of juxtaposing Rand’s literary “idealism” with her philosophy and in practice transferring that ideal to her philosophy. Of course I am not against *ideals.* I am against Platonic Ideals masquerading as rational goals, which includes the branch of philosophy called Politics. We should be working for Constitutionally justified user fees and no taxation but when you demand to pay no taxes now or you won’t support a candidate who won’t advocate absolutely no taxes NOW then you are reifying doctrine. It is never going to happen. That is Platonism not a variant of Aristotelian-ism.

Pointing at “Galt’s Gulch” as where we need to be, is ignoring the obvious. The place was fictional. It was owned by Midas. Everyone there was fictionally one hundred percent rational but like Dagny (during her brief stay there) may have lacked all the facts and psychological integration.

We must go through the complete list that comprises “the essence of Objectivism,” and put it onto a scientific basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

People could only get into Galt's Gulch by invitation.

I forgot the term the characters used for Dagny when they poked fun at her, but it meant she was the only party crasher in the history of Galt's Gulch.

Scab comes to mind, but I'm not sure.

So if anyone is using Galt's Gulch as an argument for open borders, they are not presenting a very convincing argument.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to confess a certain ignorance of what constitutes a legal or illegal immigrant, and especially the legalisitc technicalities that would be invovled in reforming current legislation. But I think I may be able to handle a chewing of a what may constitute a rational approach to immigration for some as yet fictional O'ist nation/government. I think the discussion would have to start with the way immigrants as such would infringe on the individual rights of the current citizens of said country( those "legally" living within the geographic borders and or jurisdictions of that government).

Is that the intent of this thread , or are most of the questions too 'obvious' to be considered worthy of conversation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

People could only get into Galt's Gulch by invitation.

I forgot the term the characters used for Dagny when they poked fun at her, but it meant she was the only party crasher in the history of Galt's Gulch.

Scab comes to mind, but I'm not sure.

So if anyone is using Galt's Gulch as an argument for open borders, they are not presenting a very convincing argument.

Michael

And by parachute or a circling airplane with killed-dead magnetos.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

People could only get into Galt's Gulch by invitation.

I forgot the term the characters used for Dagny when they poked fun at her, but it meant she was the only party crasher in the history of Galt's Gulch.

Scab comes to mind, but I'm not sure.

So if anyone is using Galt's Gulch as an argument for open borders, they are not presenting a very convincing argument.

Michael

It was "scab". Since what Galt was doing was running a strike, then anyone who does not join in and continues working for the enemy is a scab.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Scab:" I don't think it was a joke. It could depend on an actor's inflection.

--Brant

reading it it wasn't a joke

Edited by Brant Gaede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

People could only get into Galt's Gulch by invitation.

I forgot the term the characters used for Dagny when they poked fun at her, but it meant she was the only party crasher in the history of Galt's Gulch.

Scab comes to mind, but I'm not sure.

So if anyone is using Galt's Gulch as an argument for open borders, they are not presenting a very convincing argument.

Michael

And by parachute or a circling airplane with killed-dead magnetos.

--Brant

Dany made a "dead stick landing". Not recommended for any aircraft with an L:D of less than 20.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My second major point on this “Immigration” thread is the wrongness of juxtaposing Rand’s literary “idealism” with her philosophy and in practice transferring that ideal to her philosophy. Of course I am not against *ideals.* I am against Platonic Ideals masquerading as rational goals, which includes the branch of philosophy called Politics. We should be working for Constitutionally justified user fees and no taxation but when you demand to pay no taxes now or you won’t support a candidate who won’t advocate absolutely no taxes NOW then you are reifying doctrine. It is never going to happen. That is Platonism not a variant of Aristotelian-ism.

Pointing at “Galt’s Gulch” as where we need to be, is ignoring the obvious. The place was fictional. It was owned by Midas. Everyone there was fictionally one hundred percent rational but like Dagny (during her brief stay there) may have lacked all the facts and psychological integration.

We must go through the complete list that comprises “the essence of Objectivism,” and put it onto a scientific basis.

Peter: Well argued throughout I think. Taking another angle, grafting the "ought" onto the "is" is parlous - in the realm of politics. The false dichotomy relates, after all, to the metaphysical nature of man, then to the individual, not directly for large numbers of men and women in a semi- collectivist society.

Attempting the conflation regardless of realities is prone to Platonism, as you point out.

Immigration is not a philosophic principle to be steadfastly stuck to, willy-nilly - but a 'policy', based upon principles which in turn are based upon reality. It will be a fine judgement to make, eventually: at which point of a nation's privatization and disappearing welfare state, will it become right and proper to open its borders to all? More, a country has the context of other nations to consider as well.

But it's certain that at somesuch point, it will be freedom lovers predominantly who will be attracted to immigrate. The more the merrier, I say.

This seeming paradox recalls for me D. Kelley's caution (on another topic) that as Objectivists we sometimes find ourselves in what seems like a balancing act between intrinsicism and subjectivism - lean away from one and we may stray into the other. I think ARI tends to the intrinsic theory of valuation (and condemnation), generally, as a result.

(Nicely turned around, your 'initiation of force' argument, btw. The government, I hear from some quarters, is initiating force by controlling access by border-jumpers. As you query, who in actual fact is the initiator of force here?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

People could only get into Galt's Gulch by invitation.

I forgot the term the characters used for Dagny when they poked fun at her, but it meant she was the only party crasher in the history of Galt's Gulch.

Scab comes to mind, but I'm not sure.

So if anyone is using Galt's Gulch as an argument for open borders, they are not presenting a very convincing argument.

And by parachute or a circling airplane with killed-dead magnetos.

--Brant

Dany made a "dead stick landing". Not recommended for any aircraft with an L:D of less than 20.

Ba'al Chatzaf

As a pilot I can't figure out what you mean here. Gliding distance? Landing speed relative to the ground depending on density altitude? This is a ratio (I think)?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tmj wrote:

I think the discussion would have to start with the way immigrants as such would infringe on the individual rights of the current citizens of said country (those "legally" living within the geographic borders and or jurisdictions of that government). Is that the intent of this thread, or are most of the questions too 'obvious' to be considered worthy of conversation?

end quote

Leonard Nimoy gave a partial answer for me when he wrote:

I’m attracted to images that come from a personal exploration of a subject matter. When they have a personal stamp to them, then I think it becomes identifiable.

end quote

Everything is worthy of conversation if someone on OL volunteers to discuss an issue. Where else can you find “strangers” of this intellectual quality who are interested in philosophy? Not at the mall or even the library.

The issue of infringement to every current citizen by illegal border jumpers is difficult to prove in the abstract in an ideally Capitalist United States but pick ANY concrete example and it is almost too easy. Let me pick an example of an illegal who is not objectionable.

Dodging wolverines and Yetis, Celine Dion sneaks through the Canadian North Woods and lands in southern Michigan. She hitches a ride with a guy in a red pick up truck and sings as payment for the ride. Her beautiful voice fills the cab of the truck: “Near, Far, wherever you are, I believe that the heart does go on.” When she finishes the guy wipes away a tear then grabs her purse and kicks her out on the highway. She flags down a Michigan State police car . . . . and utilizes services paid for by others. Of course an example of a person who enters illegally with a bag of gold and then enriches the lives of Americans and donates a portion of his wealth to the government is possible but not plausible.

So, I think illegal immigration is just fine, “. . . and Brutus was an honorable man . . . .”

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

People could only get into Galt's Gulch by invitation.

I forgot the term the characters used for Dagny when they poked fun at her, but it meant she was the only party crasher in the history of Galt's Gulch.

Scab comes to mind, but I'm not sure.

So if anyone is using Galt's Gulch as an argument for open borders, they are not presenting a very convincing argument.

And by parachute or a circling airplane with killed-dead magnetos.

--Brant

Dany made a "dead stick landing". Not recommended for any aircraft with an L:D of less than 20.

Ba'al Chatzaf

As a pilot I can't figure out what you mean here. Gliding distance? Landing speed relative to the ground depending on density altitude? This is a ratio (I think)?

--Brant

Most small powered planes have a lift to drag ratio under 10. This makes the bricks with wings. It is very hard to bring in planes with a low lift to drag ration w.o. power. Chesley Sullenbergers landing of a heavy w.o. power will stand in the record books for decades if not centuries. If he let the plane come in too fast it would have broken up and if he could not keep the nose up it would have broken up. Dead stick landings with heavy aircraft are rare and most of them do not end happily.

The only aircraft fit to soar are soaring planes which have lift to drag ratio between 20 and 50. Soaring planes have very long wings in relation to the body length

I once did some soaring in a Groebe Glassenfluger with a 50:1 L.D. Absolutely amazing!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Your idea of survivability has a lot to do with your glider experience--something I hunger for. What happened to Dagny and her likely airplane would have a low survivability possibility as per her actions described in the novel. It would have had to have been freakish, frankly. Now, if she had had say 2000 feet to prepare and drop maximum flaps she might have landed with, oh, 70mph ground speed (50 at sea level?). Much better odds. Thrown out of the airplane--with the airplane sustaining minimum damage--no way. And if she had been in a true spin she would have plowed straight down into the ground for she had no room for any kind of recovery.

Mox nix.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Your idea of survivability has a lot to do with your glider experience--something I hunger for. What happened to Dagny and her likely airplane would have a low survivability possibility as per her actions described in the novel. It would have had to have been freakish, frankly. Now, if she had had say 2000 feet to prepare and drop maximum flaps she might have landed with, oh, 70mph ground speed (50 at sea level?). Much better odds. Thrown out of the airplane--with the airplane sustaining minimum damage--no way. And if she had been in a true spin she would have plowed straight down into the ground for she had no room for any kind of recovery.

Mox nix.

--Brant

Objectivists are made of sterner stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Your idea of survivability has a lot to do with your glider experience--something I hunger for. What happened to Dagny and her likely airplane would have a low survivability possibility as per her actions described in the novel. It would have had to have been freakish, frankly. Now, if she had had say 2000 feet to prepare and drop maximum flaps she might have landed with, oh, 70mph ground speed (50 at sea level?). Much better odds. Thrown out of the airplane--with the airplane sustaining minimum damage--no way. And if she had been in a true spin she would have plowed straight down into the ground for she had no room for any kind of recovery.

Mox nix.

--Brant

Read about Dagny's crash landing again. Ayn Rand had here -standing up- and holding the controls!!!!!!!!!! Dear God!!!!. No pilot in creation stands up from his/her set. Pilots belt themselves in. It is virtually impossible to control a plane not strapped down because a plane moves in three dimensions, not to two like an auto.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter

If Shakira were found wondering around wearing a suicide(murder?) vest the paid for authorities would be justified and warranted to remove the threat she posed, yes? Her immigration status would not be relevant to the threat, and ideally a controlled crossing or entry point would have prevented her from posing such a threat.

So is it that immigration should be seen in the light of minimizing physical threats on a practical basis alone?(including things as communicable diseases).

It seems in an ideal capitalistic nation ,it would be more like having the bouncer at the door check you out and then admit you to the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Your idea of survivability has a lot to do with your glider experience--something I hunger for. What happened to Dagny and her likely airplane would have a low survivability possibility as per her actions described in the novel. It would have had to have been freakish, frankly. Now, if she had had say 2000 feet to prepare and drop maximum flaps she might have landed with, oh, 70mph ground speed (50 at sea level?). Much better odds. Thrown out of the airplane--with the airplane sustaining minimum damage--no way. And if she had been in a true spin she would have plowed straight down into the ground for she had no room for any kind of recovery.

Mox nix.

--Brant

Read about Dagny's crash landing again. Ayn Rand had here -standing up- and holding the controls!!!!!!!!!! Dear God!!!!. No pilot in creation stands up from his/her set. Pilots belt themselves in. It is virtually impossible to control a plane not strapped down because a plane moves in three dimensions, not to two like an auto.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Regardless, she tells it in her powerful way. She transcends the need for verisimilitude if she has to. The pilot wouldn't be half on her knees trying to control the plane either. A simple lap belt would prevent that. Even if no belt I doubt she'd be out of her seat until impact.

--Brant

she probably did a better job, technically, describing a funance breakout, but I'm no steel worker

If you want to write a great novel you do what she did; if you want to fly a plane you don't read AS during a crash landing to figure out what to do or use it as a training manual before the emergency situation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tmj wrote:

So is it that immigration should be seen in the light of minimizing physical threats on a practical basis alone? (including things as communicable diseases).

end quote

Possible physical threats and disease are two reasons to screen border crossers. America should stop potential terrorists and the communicably sick at the border. Every large airport in the world “profiles” and searches passengers in some manner to keep the aircraft safe but that also protects the country where the plane lands. Xenophobia or fear of strangers in general is not a valid reason to oppose open borders. Free United State’s citizens own the country and pay for its legitimate services. Foreigners do not pay nor do they have a say. So a foreigner or another country are not allowed, for instance, to use the U.S. Navy to search for a missing plane unless the officials we elected agree to do so.

What if a U.S. citizen wants his brother to come to America but his brother is judged to be a potential terrorist because he writes for a blog urging “Death to America?” Is the citizen’s right to free association penalized if an immigration official says, “No?” Of course not. Yet, I can envision cooperation between two countries (like Canada, Mexico, or Israel) and America to ease border crossings but we will check each person out, as does every civilized country on the planet.

There was a recent case of an employee of an Indian ambassador who was brought to America and I think it was without permission or screening. The poor Indian woman was treated like dirt, underpaid, overworked, and beaten. I think it was correct for us to step into the situation, and we were not infringing upon the rights of the Indian ambassador.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this