Harry Binswanger on Open Immigration

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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]

Wolf,

So you think immigration to China is a fundamental human right?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

I guess I gotta say something. I know where you are coming from and share your frustration when standard Objectivist fundy-snark is presented and kept up in trolling someone instead of a substantive argument.

You are a regular, so you get more flexibility than others. Hell, you even cuss at me sometimes.

But this round went to a level I don't want to encourage on the forum.

Not your last post, that was OK... the explosions of anger before went there...

No biggie, though. I have no doubt you intend respect for OL.

Michael

[Mark]

...

The "official Objectivists" aren't official anything for the appellation is an oxymoron. ...

...

By “official Objectivists” I mean the folks at the self-styled Ayn Rand Institute.

[Brant Gaede]

Yeah. I've got more respect for Harry Binswanger. His "cult" is only in his head and for those who literally hand over the cash. I have to give one and a half thumbs up on that, but I don't desire to shop there even if he'd hit the buzzer and let me in the door. I'd never lie my way in either.

--Brant

[Mikee]

Mike,

I guess I gotta say something. I know where you are coming from and share your frustration when standard Objectivist fundy-snark is presented and kept up in trolling someone instead of a substantive argument.

You are a regular, so you get more flexibility than others. Hell, you even cuss at me sometimes.

But this round went to a level I don't want to encourage on the forum.

Not your last post, that was OK... the explosions of anger before went there...

No biggie, though. I have no doubt you intend respect for OL.

Michael

I cleaned up a bit, following Brant's suggestion. Of course I mean no disrespect towards OL and the vast majority of participants and guests here.

[Wolf DeVoon]

VIENNA - Europe struggled on Monday with traffic backups on Hungary's border with Austria, stalled trains packed with refugees bound for Germany and deepening policy confusion over the migrant crisis... [New York Times]

It's a worldwide problem. I don't think human rights are determined by majority opinion or fussy rules. Millions of Chinese want to emigrate to America and Canada. Millions of Arabs and Africans want to live in Europe. It's manifestly rational self interest to escape hell if you can.

[Brant Gaede]

Just don't bring hell with you--at least.

--Brant

[Jules Troy]

VIENNA - Europe struggled on Monday with traffic backups on Hungary's border with Austria, stalled trains packed with refugees bound for Germany and deepening policy confusion over the migrant crisis... [New York Times]

It's a worldwide problem. I don't think human rights are determined by majority opinion or fussy rules. Millions of Chinese want to emigrate to America and Canada. Millions of Arabs and Africans want to live in Europe. It's manifestly rational self interest to escape hell if you can.

[Jules Troy]

Agreed, I'm good with that as long as they check their little bit of hell at the door upon entering.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just don't bring hell with you--at least.

Brant,

That is the fundamental problem.

Why should one country allow a hoard of immigrants in if they are, say, communist or Islamist organizers intent on overthrowing the country's institutions and installing their form of dictatorship? Or criminals intent on forming inner city gangs? And so on...

That, to me, is aggression and needs screening.

I have no trouble with letting poor oppressed people in.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Just don't bring hell with you--at least.

--Brant

They always do, and that raises interesting questions about police power. Current U.S. immigration law is a mess. Can't deport an illegal immigrant or someone who overstayed a visa without 18-month administrative law process, and deporting someone means nothing, because they can turn around and re-enter the U.S. again. The "anchor baby" 14th Amendment loophole is absolutely crazy. Pregnant women from all over the world enter to give birth in America, which confers putative citizenship on the baby and lawful residency for parents and siblings, entitling all to cash welfare, free housing and Medicaid. Immigrant jihadis are a clear and present danger. Brutal gangsters from El Salvador and Mexico bring their culture of crime, domestic violence and mob mentality. Filling prisons with hoodlums is a costly public policy that amounts to subsidizing thousands of immigration lawyers and pouring sand in the criminal justice system.

The solution (as always) is private property. A few public roads to get from Point A to Point B unhindered, fine -- but no right to squat on my land, no right to put your hand in my pocket for welfare. As you rightly said, it might be hundreds if not thousands of years in the future to dump altruism and welfare statism, but what we have now is a magnet for crime and sloth.

[Brant Gaede]

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]

Wolf,

So you think immigration to China is a fundamental human right?

Michael

I'd call the right to life the fundamental human right followed by the right to property. I don't reverse these as some try to do.

The right "to keep and bear arms" is derived from the right to property and more importantly from the right to self defense, for that ties right into the right to life without any brokering.

The right for a woman to get an abortion ties right into her own right to life, but the SCOTUS knew it couldn't come with reasoning sophisticated enough to make that go down for the fetus becomes a baby and the baby is beautiful and cute and alive--everybody has some trouble with it except ideologues--so they put it under a "right to privacy." The right to privacy can't include the right to murder.

--Brant

[Peter]

I disagree with the official Objectivist position on immigration.

Wolf wrote: The solution (as always) is private property. A few public roads to get from Point A to Point B unhindered, fine -- but no right to squat on my land, no right to put your hand in my pocket for welfare. As you rightly said, it might be hundreds if not thousands of years in the future to dump altruism and welfare statism, but what we have now is a magnet for crime and sloth.
end quote

Amen but before, Wolf wrote: It's a worldwide problem. I don't think human rights are determined by majority opinion or fussy rules. Millions of Chinese want to immigrate to America; millions of Arabs and Africans want to immigrate to Europe. It's manifestly rational self interest to escape hell if you can.
end quote

Wolf it is also rationally in America’s self interest to keep an invading army the hell out. Do you agree?

Rewind the tape to 2014, Vanna White. Wolf, Binswanger, and the ARI positions were similar. In a Constitutional 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 millions of Chinese, Arabs, and Africans 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. And those people are identified as OFFICIAL citizens. Our United States has a government constituted on individual rights, WITHIN A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, for all time. The United States 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, until the illegal immigrants / invaders form into tribes, a communist community, or an area living under Sharia Law. An alien in America is standing on someone’s property and I do not want them to be here. 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.

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, and even then I somehow doubt it. They don’t recognize individual rights. 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 the persons who may 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? Hell no.

[Brant Gaede]

dup

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, I have such a high opinion of myself, I'm given to quoting me

Hi, Wolf. I see you arguing logically off a radical base. I try to argue off the extant base. Your problem is getting to an extant base you can work off. I'm already there. The worldwide homogenization of economies, ideas, values, philosophies that could give rise as a final step into the shoes you now occupy is hundreds if not thousands of years away. The final step--if possible and if desirable--would be identified and acted or not acted upon by those then living, now unborn. I merely advocate moving in the direction of more freedom as a basic political action principle. For illegal immigration, for starters from that context, I suggest just cutting off benefits. Then they'd only come to do productive work. The cry of "Give them benefits" is then countered with the cry to cut and eliminate "benefits" (over time) of citizens getting them. You need a lot more freedom before people can begin to grapple with your philosophy as stated. In that sense ideas follow substance then they lead substance. Back and forth. The ideas being worked on if not off of right now are classical libertarian/Objectivist in the political realm. You are trying to present the goods of freedom in a different way. It's too much too soon assuming utilitarian value. But, like libertarians generally, you are centered on political philosophy while Objectivists eat "ethics" as the primary locus of their focus. Politics derives from an ethical base and the ethical base you embrace is only the part in and implied to be in your politics. NIOF. (I may have you somewhat wrong because I can't quite get "defense of innocent liberty" into my head. It doesn't catch on my mental hooks.)

I could go on in this vein of what I call "doable now," but I would just be chewing on the turf. But for one example: give out work cards doubling as ID cards that let illegals come and go freely across our borders to work and go home as they want. Thus they lose their illegal status. They're checked in and out. What you do not do is let them become citizens unless they fall into defined classes of exceptions. Do not let them vote. One problem with voting is they will vote for people who would give them benefits. Of course I am leaving pages of details off the table.

--Brant

Hi, Wolf. I see you arguing logically off a radical base. I try to argue off the extant base. Your problem is getting to an extant base you can work off. I'm already there. The worldwide homogenization of economies, ideas, values, philosophies that could give rise as a final step into the shoes you now occupy is hundreds if not thousands of years away. The final step--if possible and if desirable--would be identified and acted or not acted upon by those then living, now unborn. I merely advocate moving in the direction of more freedom as a basic political action principle. For illegal immigration, for starters from that context, I suggest just cutting off benefits. Then they'd only come to do productive work. The cry of "Give them benefits" is then countered with the cry to cut and eliminate "benefits" (over time) of citizens getting them. You need a lot more freedom before people can begin to grapple with your philosophy as stated. In that sense ideas follow substance then they lead substance. Back and forth. The ideas being worked on if not off of right now are classical libertarian/Objectivist in the political realm. You are trying to present the goods of freedom in a different way. It's too much too soon assuming utilitarian value. But, like libertarians generally, you are centered on political philosophy while Objectivists eat "ethics" as the primary locus of their focus. Politics derives from an ethical base and the ethical base you embrace is only the part in and implied to be in your politics. NIOF. (I may have you somewhat wrong because I can't quite get "defense of innocent liberty" into my head. It doesn't catch on my mental hooks.)

I could go on in this vein of what I call "doable now," but I would just be chewing on the turf. But for one example: give out work cards doubling as ID cards that let illegals come and go freely across our borders to work and go home as they want. Thus they lose their illegal status. They're checked in and out. What you do not do is let them become citizens unless they fall into defined classes of exceptions. Do not let them vote. One problem with voting is they will vote for people who would give them benefits. Of course I am leaving pages of details off the table.

--Brant

Twice.

--Brant (the rant, but not an ant)

[Wolf DeVoon]

(selected points)

Rewind the tape to 2014, Vanna White. Wolf, Binswanger, and the ARI positions were similar...

The laws of the United States of America start at the borders of its nation...

The United States Government has a monopoly over the retaliatory use of force conferred upon it by the consent of the governed...

This is the first time I've been compared to Vanna White. I'll buy a vowel.

U.S. law applies wherever U.S. citizens or military happen to be, which is everywhere on the planet and in space.

Government uses force unilaterally without consent of the governed at home or abroad. It's important to distinguish between the myth of self government and the reality of a political establishment, permanent bureaucracy, Executive Orders, etc. What we are is a nation of enslaved sheep, two thirds of us denied a voice in conduct of public policy. Congress can't even buck the system. Presidents read from teleprompters.

Politicians have nothing of consequence to do, say, or decide. They are physiocratic

wind-up toys, floating in a bubblebath of lukewarm hysteria, reciting platitudes written

by schoolboys. We prosper to the extent that government does nothing. Clinton feels

our pain, didn't inhale, whimpers for forgiveness. If there is any justification for this

carnival of hot air, it must be discerned from an abstraction, because none of the

empirical data suggest any tangible benefit produced by these "sterile" public

employments. [Defacto Anarchy]

[anthony]

JS Mill: "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians".

Are the barbarians at the gate? (Are they within?)

Brant, a good rant. It looks as if you're considering (Mill's/Bentham's) utilitarianism in relation to individual rational self-interest.

Can they ever blur or overlap?

[Wolf DeVoon]

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

[anthony]

The poem's long been an inspiration for me, Wolf. It pains me that I should question it, lately. Mentioned not for the first time in this thread, and you've referred to it in #261, is the present nature of the "huddled masses". Are they "yearning to breathe free", or are they yearning to exist for free?

[Wolf DeVoon]

I don't know what foreign emigre or native born American wants. All I know is a fragment of Lincoln (via Sandberg)

They said, some men are too ignorant and vicious to share in government. Possibly so, said we; and, by your system, you would always keep them ignorant and vicious. We proposed to give all a chance; and we expected the weak to grow stronger, the ignorant wiser, and all better and happier together.

[Brant Gaede]

US law applies to whomever the US wants and can apply it to wherever they are. Citizenship not required.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

JS Mill: "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians".

Are the barbarians at the gate? (Are they within?)

Brant, a good rant. It looks as if you're considering (Mill's/Bentham's) utilitarianism in relation to individual rational self-interest.

Can they ever blur or overlap?

If you're climbing a ladder to your roof and you're on the first rung or two, one must note the roof is not the ladder.

--Brant

there could be a future problem:

https://youtu.be/5_H-LY4Jb2M

[anthony]

I don't know what foreign emigre or native born American wants. All I know is a fragment of Lincoln (via Sandberg)

They said, some men are too ignorant and vicious to share in government. Possibly so, said we; and, by your system, you would always keep them ignorant and vicious. We proposed to give all a chance; and we expected the weak to grow stronger, the ignorant wiser, and all better and happier together.

Great thoughts. ("Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them become what they are capable of being" - von Goethe).

That's a benevolence that follows moral strength (never the reverse) and - to take an informed guess - addressed to citizens who largely shared LIncoln's view of man and themselves.

Objectively, one cannot know what's in the mind of an individual nor predict what his acts will be, but must assume the best. Until or unless facts prove otherwise.

I think there can come a tipping point in any society when benevolence starts being taken by most as a 'given', an altruistic 'entitlement', which gradually overpowers rational self interest and drives out the possibility of benevolence. Europe, specifically, is dramatically facing the just effects of its long-held philosophy.

[Wolf DeVoon]

I want to revisit something Peter said.

The final authority to make laws must be within the hands of the Federal Government.

The rule of law has nothing to do with a sovereign state, except in the narrow sense that

such states exist and when they comply with the rule of law they are viewed as legal persons

(litigants) possessed of competent legal standing to sue or be sued with the presumption of

innocence, no greater or lesser in legal character than a single infant child. States are

checked by asserting your personal right to freedom and justice -- i.e., constitutional legal

rights that no state may lawfully abridge. [Laissez Faire Law, p.178]

So the question is, what does the U.S. Constitution provide with respect to immigration?

Absolutely nothing other than 14th Amendment automatic citizenship by birth.

Barack was only a muslim during his formative years when he was growing up in a muslim

country in a muslim school with a muslim step-father after being named by his muslim father.

[Zero Hedge]

[Brant Gaede]

What Peter has rubber stamped is the "authority" of the Federalie bureaucrats to impose innumerable regulations and create administrative judges as part of their enforcement.

Might be Barack is also a citizen of Indonesia.

--Brant