Harry Binswanger on Open Immigration


Recommended Posts

Peter makes an analogy between those who advocate what I’ll call “true immigration reform” – the opposite of the leftist-big business coalition’s “comprehensive immigration reform” – and those who shout into an echo-chamber.


In the analogy Coulter, Trump, Brimelow, ... correspond to the shouters. Who or what corresponds to the echo-chamber? The same group of people? No, most of America, and they don’t echo what they say they thought it long ago and finally have found their spokesmen.


After more mockery Peter says that at least an exception to an immigration moratorium should be made for “refugees.” Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement Watch is a great resource to see why not, also the refugee racket articles on Vdare.com .


BG calls this “inchoate conservative cultural noise.” In fact it’s a clear and consistent position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 326
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is categorically not the Objectivist stance. Men are evaluated on the basis of character and individual attributes, not race. And it is case by case by the person. Even family members are to be j

It's true because it's a primitive impulse (dating back to hunter gatherer/cave times). Sexual desire and aggression is also kind of a male impulse, that does not make rape moral or acceptable. You ar

After more mockery? I think of it as education, Mark. If you come at a problem, time after time, like Rand, then people tune you out. I use my sense of humor to sell my position. I was chided by Barbara Branden once for it, but I continued to do it naturally. It is hard for me to stop joshing but I will try not to tease.

Thanks for the leak, I mean link, about refugees. NO child left behind isn't my motto but I think no soldier should be left behind.
Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites
Re Marcus’s last:
M.O. is for criminals. I’ve committed thoughtcrime. Repeat offender.

Hate to correct you dude...

modus operandi or mode of operation

The term is also commonly used in English in a non-criminal sense to describe someone's habits or manner of working, the method of operating or functioning.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Pasted from the online version of Merriam-Webster ...


a method of procedure; especially : a distinct pattern or method of operation that indicates or suggests the work of a single criminal in more than one crime


In other words, mode of operation with a certain connotation.


If the presidential race comes to Trump vs. Hillary Clinton or Trump vs. Jeb Bush, Trump should refer to his opponent's modus operandi every other day.




Link to post
Share on other sites
Pasted from the online version of Merriam-Webster ...
a method of procedure; especially : a distinct pattern or method of operation that indicates or suggests the work of a single criminal in more than one crime
In other words, mode of operation with a certain connotation.
If the presidential race comes to Trump vs. Hillary Clinton or Trump vs. Jeb Bush, Trump should refer to his opponent's modus operandi every other day.

Come on Mark, your original use of mo you made no qualifying statement as to other possible uses, or, meanings,

That is all I meant.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

hundreds or thousands of years in the future

Never thought of it that way, but now that you mention it, makes a lot of sense, explains much.

However...

The philosophy of law is a separate branch of science, independent of ethics. Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?" Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs. [Preamble, Freeman's Constitution, COGIGG, p.121]

When the men of brains collaborate with a mob of dullards, it's unfair to blame the resultant calamity on a crowd of pickpockets and cheerleaders. Sadly, a moral principle never reaches beyond itself. Its ethical arms are too short, extending no farther than one man's soul, one man's purpose and lifespan. We have to look elsewhere for political guidance, because the thing at issue is "a nation of laws and not of men." [Defacto Anarchy, Laissez Faire Law, pp.41-42]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Re Marcus’s last:
M.O. is for criminals. I’ve committed thoughtcrime. Repeat offender.

You are guilty as charged. The offense? Stupidity. Lack of comprehension. Your arguments are as dull as a mis-used butterknife. Or perhaps a granny's old, polished off dildo.

Interesting word tolerate. You tolerate only what you do not like. If you like something you don’t use the word tolerate.

America never was the color-blind utopia Marcus makes it out to have been. As for today, just look at the news.

Mark "The Tribesman" Hunter somehow believes that I said or implied that America is a "color-blind utopia" of which I did neither. Seeing that is as easy as going back and re-reading my earlier comment. If you can manage that then come back with a real argument. Not a strawman.

This a forum discussion. I tolerate you, that does not mean I don't challenge any of your nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Re Marcus’s last:
M.O. is for criminals. I’ve committed thoughtcrime. Repeat offender.

You are guilty as charged. The offense? Stupidity. Lack of comprehension. Your arguments are as dull as a mis-used butterknife. Or perhaps a granny's old, polished off dildo.

Interesting word tolerate. You tolerate only what you do not like. If you like something you don’t use the word tolerate.

America never was the color-blind utopia Marcus makes it out to have been. As for today, just look at the news.

Mark "The Tribesman" Hunter somehow believes that I said or implied that America is a "color-blind utopia" of which I did neither. Seeing that is as easy as going back and re-reading my earlier comment. If you can manage that then come back with a real argument. Not a strawman.

This a forum discussion. I tolerate you, that does not mean I don't challenge any of your nonsense.

This is pure rot. You have the imagination and personality of a hyena. "I tolerate you" !?!? You remind me of the idiot at the turn of the 19th century who claimed "everything that can be invented has been invented". In your case you believe all of philosophical history ends with your conclusions. Marks most offhand remarks are more interesting and insightful than the sum total of your pedantic and sycophantic ravings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike E. wrote: This is pure rot. You have the imagination and personality of a hyena. "I tolerate you" !?!? You arrogant asshole. You remind me of the idiot . . .
end quote

I have said a lot that I later regretted. But, come on Mike. Think it but don’t publish it. I will check back in on your writing style, but for now, you are on my do not call/write/respond list.

I hope the campaign doesn’t get too nasty. Hillary was comparing Republicans to terrorists.

from Wikipedia. Taxi! Starring James Cagney and Loretta Young. When a veteran cab driver, Pop Riley (Guy Kibbee), refuses to be pressured into surrendering his prime soliciting location outside a cafe, wherein his daughter works, the old man's cab is intentionally wrecked by a ruthless mob seeking to dominate the cab industry . . . .

The film includes two famous Cagney dialogues, one of which features Cagney conducting a conversation with a passenger in Yiddish, and the other when Cagney is speaking to his brother's killer through a locked closet, "Come out and take it, you dirty yellow-bellied rat, or I'll give it to you through the door!." The provenance of this sequence led to Cagney being famously misquoted as saying, "You dirty rat, you killed my brother."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil Parille wrote: . . . Harry Binswanger exempts Israel from his open immigration views.

What would Trump’s criteria be for immigration into the United States? I don’t want losers coming here? I don’t want losers staying here illegally? Of course he would hire an expert to restate that after the election. I would say his thoughtful answer would be, Intelligence. Productivity. Skills. Health. White people (I know, I know) The ability to assimilate. No refugees, immigrants from allied countries only.
Peter

Teaching with the News Online Resource: As you develop your own option for current U.S. immigration policy, think about these questions:
• What is the history of U.S. immigration?
• Who is coming to the United States?
• Why are they coming and what do they bring with them?
• How does immigration impact the country?
• What effect does our immigration policy have on our relations with other countries?
• What U.S. interests are at stake in this issue?
• What should our long-term goals be concerning immigration?
• What steps should the United States take in the near term?
• What values are important to you?
• What are the strengths of your option? What are the arguments against it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike E. wrote: This is pure rot. You have the imagination and personality of a hyena. "I tolerate you" !?!? You arrogant asshole. You remind me of the idiot . . .

end quote

I have said a lot that I later regretted. But, come on Mike. Think it but don’t publish it. I will check back in on your writing style, but for now, you are on my do not call/write/respond list.

Such a brave remark Peter Taylor. Now, name something I said you disagree with, or something, anything, Marcus has ever said with sincerity or originality, other than insults. Also brave of you to address me directly and then announce you won't respond to my reply. You expect to be taken seriously?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pure rot. You have the imagination and personality of a hyena. "I tolerate you" !?!? You arrogant asshole. You remind me of the idiot at the turn of the 19th century who claimed "everything that can be invented has been invented". In your case you believe all of philosophical history ends with your conclusions. Marks most offhand remarks are more interesting and insightful than the sum total of your pedantic and sycophantic ravings.

Translation: Blah, blah. Ad-hominem attack. Blah blah. Ad-hominem. Ad-hominem.

Is that it? lol.

This is not a contest of "who is most interesting", but if it was, judging by your lack of substance, you'd be losing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not the judge of anything. You have no substance at all except parroting someone elses ideas. Wishing someone would drop dead because of their total lack of originality and their abuse of others is not ad hominem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mikee refresh your stale mind as to what an ad-hominem is, here I'll even Google it for you.

Merriam-Webster:

Definition of AD HOMINEM
1
: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2
: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

And back to you:

This is pure rot. You have the imagination and personality of a hyena. "I tolerate you" !?!? You arrogant asshole. You remind me of the idiot at the turn of the 19th century who claimed "everything that can be invented has been invented". In your case you believe all of philosophical history ends with your conclusions. Marks most offhand remarks are more interesting and insightful than the sum total of your pedantic and sycophantic ravings.

Like I said blah, blah. Ad-hominem. Blah.

It's fitting that your avatar is an open book. You clearly be mad. Too mad to even halfway form a proper argument. lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant,

I get a security warning from Firefox, bypass that, then a "Not found" error message.

Message received.

Except...I have a lot more to say about how certain objectivistist's make Ayn Rand's message and purpose a twisted unrecognizable but unkillable tumor of self righteous self referring disconnected from reality bludgeoning to express their hatred of humanity. Unlike Ayn Rand who loved what it means to be human, what it took for humans to survive on earth, and how important philosophy is in our lives, everyone's lives, not just a few self anointed word twisters who show their contempt for humanity at every possible opportunity. If you don't like people, ordinary people, you are not an objectivist of any kind. I'm sick of the humanity of Ayn Rand being dismissed as if she was some kind of monster. I expect it from the leftists and Marxists. The ARIians, some libertarians and anarchists are as elitist and contemptuous of people as the left and make themselves irrelevant insofar as the people of the world digging themselves out of the hole which has been engineered for them to fall into. This is an extraordinary point in time, I think. I have no patience remaining for fools. Marks attempt at having a real conversation should not have been extinguished by the sycophant idiot Marcus regurgitating the ARI version of Objectivism 101 to a board consisting of mostly people with more than fifty years of studying Ayn Rand.

End of morning rant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I remember why I have Mikee's posts hidden.

Back on topic, why I'm in favor of immigration as a fundamental human right:

China's Ministry of Public Security says the accused are very, very sorry for their actions, in which they "misled society and the public, generated and spread fearful sentiment, and even used the opportunity to maliciously concoct rumors to attack Party and national leaders." [Zero Hedge]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I remember why I have Mikee's posts hidden.

Back on topic, why I'm in favor of immigration as a fundamental human right:

China's Ministry of Public Security says the accused are very, very sorry for their actions, in which they "misled society and the public, generated and spread fearful sentiment, and even used the opportunity to maliciously concoct rumors to attack Party and national leaders." [Zero Hedge]

What do you mean by "hidden?"

Good to see you Wolf...the _____ that came in from the _____?

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites
There’s no comparison between Red China’s "Ministry of Public Security" and immigration law enforcement.


Among other things I think Mikee described the contempt official Objectivists have for laboring Americans. The lower class and lower middle class are being driven down by mass Third World immigration. Not everyone has a six figure income and can insulate themselves inside a gated community. The official Objectivists sneer at laborers: the world doesn’t owe you a job!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant,

I get a security warning from Firefox, bypass that, then a "Not found" error message.

Message received.

Except...I have a lot more to say about how certain objectivistist's make Ayn Rand's message and purpose a twisted unrecognizable but unkillable tumor of self righteous self referring disconnected from reality bludgeoning to express their hatred of humanity. Unlike Ayn Rand who loved what it means to be human, what it took for humans to survive on earth, and how important philosophy is in our lives, everyone's lives, not just a few self anointed word twisters who show their contempt for humanity at every possible opportunity. If you don't like people, ordinary people, you are not an objectivist of any kind. I'm sick of the humanity of Ayn Rand being dismissed as if she was some kind of monster. I expect it from the leftists and Marxists. The ARIians, some libertarians and anarchists are as elitist and contemptuous of people as the left and make themselves irrelevant insofar as the people of the world digging themselves out of the hole which has been engineered for them to fall into. This is an extraordinary point in time, I think. I have no patience remaining for fools. Marks attempt at having a real conversation should not have been extinguished by the sycophant idiot Marcus regurgitating the ARI version of Objectivism 101 to a board consisting of mostly people with more than fifty years of studying Ayn Rand.

End of morning rant.

When you use the language you used in the way you used it you are hurting OL.

Why don't you simply go edit that language out?

If you have to do something in anger when you have the luxury in time of first dealing with the anger other than through existential means you've made a mistake. By virtue of that you become trapped in your own righteousness and it snaps back to hit you in your face.

The post of mine you are referencing was merely me getting between you and the site owner reading you the riot act and Marcus continuing the "conversation." I am now disinterested in either the conversation or jumping in front of any disapprobation you have in justice coming to you. I only suggest you take advantage of the only consequent advantage you still have. The "message" you "received" wasn't from me. Michael came in at 12:30 this morning while I slept and fixed the link. He wrote what you received. I have no moderating power. You didn't really get his message. Or mine. I said you were on your own. You still are. We are off the thread topic.

I've been into this Objectivism business for over 50 years too. I'm also pushing 30 years--continuous years--of Internet conversations. I've seen it all except from the new social media which I'm generally avoiding. I'm 92.5% here and 7% on ToThePointNews.com. So I get protective. It's too much unnecessary work to do something else elsewhere.

--Brant

thank you for editing your posts: it's so much better now for all and sundry and now we can concentrate on what you substantially said instead of how you said it

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s no comparison between Red China’s "Ministry of Public Security" and immigration law enforcement.

Among other things I think Mikee described the contempt official Objectivists have for laboring Americans. The lower class and lower middle class are being driven down by mass Third World immigration. Not everyone has a six figure income and can insulate themselves inside a gated community. The official Objectivists sneer at laborers: the world doesn’t owe you a job!

The "official Objectivists" aren't official anything for the appellation is an oxymoron. As for your observation, I cannot comment, for I don't follow these oxy-moron-ists enough to know at whom they sneer that particularly. I mean they sneer at a lot of people, usually by pretending to if not actually ignoring them. That would include me. I don't think they sneer or would sneer at me because I can drive--and have driven--a semi-tractor trailer just as I don't think they'd admire me because I can fly an airplane. I'm either in or I'm out and that's for everybody respecting their cult. In that sense they got Ayn Rand right--except they've no replacement. At least I've had the grace to put flowers on her grave and know what's buried and ought to be and left over for proper approbation.

--Brant

edit: I just went to your ARIwatch.com site--not for the first time--and "Ayn Rand and the Noble Lie" is so good I have to recommend your site to those interested in Rand and NeoConservativism or for what-have-you (there's a lot of reading there which I've yet to do)

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now