Harry Binswanger on Open Immigration

[Peter]

Wolf, has your self-penned Laissez Faire Law ever been used successfully in refuting The U.S. Constitution in any court of law? Of course not, so you are presumptuous to quote it and then go on to discuss the Real Constitution. Is it proof of anything other than your desire to refine the Constitution? No, so I would prefer you don’t offer it as proof even if you swear on a stack of bibles. It is irrelevant, though I do appreciate some of your parsing. Such sovereign states, as you derisively describe them, gloriously exist and are potentially great places to live. As Obama’s Reverend Jeremiah Wright did NOT say, “God Bless America.” That jab is meant for your self aggrandizement and your disdain for our great country. A Bronx cheer to all you who live here and hate your country.
Peter

Notes:
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]

[Peter]

Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Wolf asked: So the question is, what does the U.S. Constitution provide with respect to immigration? (and Wolf answered) Absolutely nothing other than 14th Amendment automatic citizenship by birth.
end quote

That is not THE WHOLE TRUTH. My evidence is the following.

ONE. The intent of the 14th Amendment written in 1868 was to address citizenship rights and equal protection under the law for former African slaves and their descendants. Those were the citizens being ensured citizenship though many of its sponsors were also including people born here from British citizens during and after The Revolutionary War and into the future. It COULD be argued that the words should be taken as some sort of holy scripture but no one does, especially Wolf.

TWO. The sentence does not end with a period, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States PERIOD.” The Amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States COMMA,” which immediately makes the first exception as was intended: the children born to diplomats are not automatically citizens of the United States.

THREE. Look at litigation that has sprung from the 14th Amendment and it is obvious that the wording is EQUIVACAL. Otherwise, section one would only be used as evidence in cases of immigrant’s children. Instead, it formed the basis for several landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade in 1973 regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore in 2000, regarding presidential elections, and Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, regarding same-sex marriage.

FOUR. More sections are tacked onto the Amendment. From Wikipedia: The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom litigated. However, the second section's reference to "rebellion and other crimes" has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement . . . .
end quote

FIVE. Felony disenfranchisement? And it is found in the second section, right next to the first. So a case can also be made against the concept and actuality of anchor babies who are born to illegal immigrants and are considered the citizens of other countries, by those countries. Changing the Amendment through a Constitutional convention is not necessary. Congress can enact appropriate legislation to not grant illegals citizenship and at the same time ensure that citizens’ rights are protected.

I AM NOT supporting a particular candidate but I am looking more favorably towards . . .
Peter

[Peter]

I thought Wolf and others might be interested in a letter from the owner of Wikipedia. James Wales. If they wanted to start their own country I imagine Jimbo, Virgin Air owner Branson, McAffy (of Norton and his new computer defending system,) and others could afford to start their own Caribbean country if they wanted to, which they don’t. They just like to hang out in the tropics.
Peter


From: Jimmy Wales
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: ATL: One Amendment
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:04:27 -0700

In the vein of the question about a bill of rights for a hypothetical Iraqi constitution, here's a similar question: if you had the power to put into place one amendment to the United States constitution, what would it be?

I got this idea from libertarian law professor Eugene Volokh: http://volokh.blogspot.com/2003_02_23_volokh_archive.html#90381314

Be sure to read his post for all the "rules of the challenge" so to speak.

My own suggestion, as you might have guessed from my comments earlier today, would be an amendment modifying the Article I, section 9 power to spend money:

"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time."

My amendment would read:

---------
Section 1. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.

---------

The essential idea here is to restrain the size of government by raising the bar. This would not result in overnight perfection, obviously, but it would help a great deal, I think.
--Jimbo

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wolf, has your self-penned Laissez Faire Law ever been used successfully in refuting The U.S. Constitution in any court of law? Of course not, so you are presumptuous to quote it and then go on to discuss the Real Constitution. Is it proof of anything other than your desire to refine the Constitution? No, so I would prefer you don’t offer it as proof even if you swear on a stack of bibles. It is irrelevant, though I do appreciate some of your parsing. Such sovereign states, as you derisively describe them, gloriously exist and are potentially great places to live. As Obama’s Reverend Jeremiah Wright did NOT say, “God Bless America.” That jab is meant for your self aggrandizement and your disdain for our great country. A Bronx cheer to all you who live here and hate your country.

Peter

Notes:

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]

Peter,

Without getting into merits or substance, Wolf is plugging his ideas. I have no problem with that.

A lot of intelligent people read OL and this is one way they might get intrigued enough to read Wolf's works. Then, should they comment about his ideas to their peeps, his name and ideas spread.

Wolf sincerely believes in his work--to the extent that some of his repetitions might come off as preachy. But he is not obnoxious about it (demeaning with snark posters who disagree, trying to engage in clique formation and peer pressure, shouting down contrary ideas, setting himself up as The One True Way, and things like that).

I know how hard it is to be heard through the noise in our culture, so I am glad to offer him a place where a small but intelligent audience of thinkers can see him.

Incidentally, I do not agree with some of his ideas, but discussing them correctly with the respect they deserve, and refining my own thinking about them where I admit I might be wrong (or right), requires a lot more time and research than I have right now if I intend to complete the projects I am working on. (I have the same difficulty with George Smith, Stephen Boydstun and some others.) Call it the curse of surrounding oneself with those smarter than one is.

So let's be gentle, dear friend. Wolf is one of the good guys.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

"Wolf is one of the good guys"!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????WTF?????

I think he got in before the borders were closed.

Nothing wrong with Wolf being "presumptuous," it's just that Peter is using the wrong word. What Wolf is doing is correct and best. When he comes with something he hasn't already published he won't have anything to quote so you'll know it's raw meat--go ahead and eat.

--Brant

resident carnivore

[Brant Gaede]

Jimmy Wales doesn't have much money.

--Brant

not bullions and bullions

[Wolf DeVoon]

Wolf, has your self-penned Laissez Faire Law ever been used successfully...?

To some extent, yes. It killed the Muni Charter and ended seven years of rule by edict. Article V was widely accepted.

I don't want to quarrel with your patriotism, however you might want to consider a very short chapter in The Constitution

of Government in Galt's Gulch, pp.139 ("How stupid are we?") and a similar statement in Laissez Faire Law, p.207:

Rationality imposes the burden of evidence and an unencumbered commitment to

discover and verify the pertinent facts. In the absence of conclusive evidence, the

crush of exigency impels us to weigh scraps of data and make reasonable estimates

and inferences. Bush and Blair turned this upside down, inventing and twisting scraps

of lies at their leisure to cover up their covert purpose for invading Iraq (oil supplies

for Israel, suppression of militant Arab resistance). Rational foreign policy requires

exactly the reverse, an integration of available evidence without prejudice or covert

agenda -- a candid, unbiased, honest, democratic debate.

As Brant recently observed, my work is irrelevant in today's cultural environment, which I freely acknowledged in my

critique of Francis Fukuyama, Laissez Faire Law, pp.105-116, considered one of my best essays. It opens as follows:

For twenty-something years, I mistakenly believed that my book manuscripts and

shorter works were ignored for lack of merit. Now, thanks to Dr. Francis Fukuyama,

I understand why I failed as a political pathfinder. Americans are impervious to new

ideas, no matter how splendidly illuminated, because there are no new ideas which

Liberal Democracy is disposed to entertain. The End of History argues that anything

submitted after the Battle of Jena in 1806 is basically irrelevant. I wish somebody had

told me this in 1975. I could have saved a pile of money on postage.

Don't worry about my few posts every couple years. Michael has a wonderful forum for lonely hearts, but it would be silly to abuse the privilege of propagating unpatriotic notions like innocent liberty. Is that a fire exit over there? Excuse me.

[Selene]

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.

Wolf:

This is not what the Fourteenth Amendment provides.

A...

[Peter]

MSK wrote: So let's be gentle, dear friend. Wolf is one of the good guys.
end quote

Agreed. I hereby provisionally agree, until events prove it less than advantageous to the rules of Hoyle and the 1258 Provisions of Oxford, that established a treaty between King Henry III of England and his Barons, which also established a permanent baronial council also called a Parliament. Can I at least be a Baron in this house of cards? I withdraw my comparisons of Wolf to naysayers of Constitutionality like Jeremy Wright and tinkerers of the Constitution like the fictional Judge Narragansett.

George H. Smith wrote in 2000: Peter, I have no desire to make an enemy of you. Perhaps we can start over.
end quote

That treaty has been sporadically called off, but I think Ghs is a genius and a very decent man.

In "Atlas Shrugged" paperback version, page 1073, Ayn prudently wrote of the character Judge Narragansett acting in this way: The rectangle of light in the acres of a farm was the window of the library of Judge Narragansett. He sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on the copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade . . ."
end quote

Rand made no reference to changing the constitution in any other way, except for those little dots after "trade . . ." like the comma in the 14th Amendment, so instead of an illogical, unprofitable, rarely read novelization of a constitution, how should Libertarians, Objectivists, and fans of Ayn Rand change our constitution?

Peter

[Peter]

MSK wrote: . . . discussing them correctly with the respect they deserve (. . . I have the same difficulty with George Smith, Stephen Boydstun and some others.) Call it the curse of surrounding oneself with those smarter than one is.
end quote

Good thinking. I won’t cry Wolf.

Wolf wrote: Americans are impervious to new ideas, no matter how splendidly illuminated, because there are no new ideas which Liberal Democracy is disposed to entertain.
end quote

So, how about realistically writing about changing The Constitution? That is being talked about. That is being done.

Wolf wrote in Laissez Faire Law, p.207: Rationality imposes the burden of evidence and an unencumbered commitment to discover and verify the pertinent facts. In the absence of conclusive evidence, the crush of exigency impels us to weigh scraps of data and make reasonable estimates and inferences.
end quote

If we use similar tools in a similar fashion using the facts of reality let us hear what you have to say.
Peter

Notes:
From "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology," page 111
Only in regard to the man-made is it valid to claim: "It happens to be, but it could have been otherwise." Even here, the term "contingent" is highly misleading. Historically, that term has been used to designate a metaphysical category of much wider scope than the realm of human action; and it has always been associated with a metaphysics which, in one form or another, denies the facts of Identity and Causality. The "necessary-contingent" terminology serves only to introduce confusion, and should be abandoned. What is required in this context is the distinction between the "metaphysical" and the "man-made."
The existence of human volition cannot be used to justify the theory that there is a dichotomy of *propositions* or of *truths*. Propositions about metaphysical facts and propositions about man-made facts do not have different characteristics *qua propositions*. They differ merely in their subject matter, but then so do the propositions of astronomy and immunology. Truths about metaphysical and man-made facts are learned and validated by the same process: by observation; and, *qua truths*, both are equally necessary. Some *facts* are not necessary, but all *truths* are.

Truth is the identification of a fact of reality. Whether the fact in question is metaphysical or man-made, the fact determines the truth: if the fact exists, there is no alternative in regard to what is true. For instance, the fact that the U.S. has 50 states was not metaphysically necessary - but as long as this is men's choice, the proposition that "The U.S. has 50 states" is necessarily *true*. A true proposition *must* describe the facts as they are. In this sense, a "necessary truth" is a redundancy, and a "contingent truth" a self-contradiction.
end quote.

[Brant Gaede]

Wolf, has your self-penned Laissez Faire Law ever been used successfully...?

To some extent, yes. It killed the Muni Charter and ended seven years of rule by edict. Article V was widely accepted.

I don't want to quarrel with your patriotism, however you might want to consider a very short chapter in The Constitution

of Government in Galt's Gulch, pp.139 ("How stupid are we?") and a similar statement in Laissez Faire Law, p.207:

Rationality imposes the burden of evidence and an unencumbered commitment to

discover and verify the pertinent facts. In the absence of conclusive evidence, the

crush of exigency impels us to weigh scraps of data and make reasonable estimates

and inferences. Bush and Blair turned this upside down, inventing and twisting scraps

of lies at their leisure to cover up their covert purpose for invading Iraq (oil supplies

for Israel, suppression of militant Arab resistance). Rational foreign policy requires

exactly the reverse, an integration of available evidence without prejudice or covert

agenda -- a candid, unbiased, honest, democratic debate.

As Brant recently observed, my work is irrelevant in today's cultural environment, which I freely acknowledged in my

critique of Francis Fukuyama, Laissez Faire Law, pp.105-116, considered one of my best essays. It opens as follows:

For twenty-something years, I mistakenly believed that my book manuscripts and

shorter works were ignored for lack of merit. Now, thanks to Dr. Francis Fukuyama,

I understand why I failed as a political pathfinder. Americans are impervious to new

ideas, no matter how splendidly illuminated, because there are no new ideas which

Liberal Democracy is disposed to entertain. The End of History argues that anything

submitted after the Battle of Jena in 1806 is basically irrelevant. I wish somebody had

told me this in 1975. I could have saved a pile of money on postage.

Don't worry about my few posts every couple years. Michael has a wonderful forum for lonely hearts, but it would be silly to abuse the privilege of propagating unpatriotic notions like innocent liberty. Is that a fire exit over there? Excuse me.

That key word "basically" vitiates the entire paragraph. That kind of reductionism is a free trip to the axioms if needed. It's a down elevator with the cables cut. Whoever came up with the idea can stop it wherever he wants to for the sake of his argument. Others can only hit bottom.

If I said your work was "irrelevant" I take it back. Was AS irrelevant in 1957 because people today are remarking how prescient AS has turned out to be almost 60 years later?

The trick is (1) try to save the world today, but (2) share that with wine, women and song. Gotta have some balance.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

"basically" vitiates the entire paragraph...It's a down elevator with the cables cut.

(whispered from fire exit) Comic hyperbole. My claim to fame.

[Peter]

Canis lupus also known as the timber wolf wrote: Don't worry about my few posts every couple years. Michael has a wonderful forum for lonely hearts, but it would be silly to abuse the privilege of propagating unpatriotic notions like innocent liberty. Is that a fire exit over there? Excuse me.
end quote

Oh well. As Daisy Well Drilling’s slogan reads, Another Well Done. “Lonely hearts. Silly. Abuse. Privilege. Unpatriotic.” What noive. But I really like innocent liberty. I would still like Wolf’s REWRITE of parts of the Constitution. I hope he continues to post. Let’s see 2015 minus 1776 equals 239 years of liberty. I plan on changing the Constitution not starting over.

On the second day of his unsuccessful Supreme Court Nomination hearing, Robert Bork testified: I do not think you can use the Ninth Amendment unless you know something of what it means. For example, if you had an amendment that says "Congress shall make no" and then there is an ink blot and you cannot read the rest of it and that is the only copy you have, I do not think the court can make up what might be under the ink blot if you cannot read it.
end quote
Peter

[Wolf DeVoon]

I hope he continues to post. Let’s see 2015 minus 1776 equals 239 years of liberty.

The narrow definition of liberty is freedom to travel, to accept or refuse a bargain, to save or spend money as you see fit, without effective regulation by government. Liberty exists and has always existed at the margins, most notably among criminals (like John Hancock, a smuggler and signatory of the Declaration of Independence) and the recent surge of illegal immigrants (estimated at 20-30 million "undocumented" U.S. residents). I suggest liberty was widest in antiquity when no one had identity documents. It shrank precipitously in the 20th century with the passage of laws like income tax and Social Security. I'm old enough to remember a time when you could buy a ticket for cash at the airport and board a plane without showing an identity document. Our forefathers were married in churches without obtaining a marriage license. People crossed from Canada and Mexico freely in the 18th century.

Considering that slavery in America existed from 1635 to 1865, and that military conscription existed until 1973 (and persists with mandatory Selective Service registration), I think it's wide of the mark to speak of 239 years of liberty and it's balderdash in today's context, unless you're a criminal. Small business owners -- sitting ducks -- have the least liberty in America unless they cut their losses, shut the door and walk away.

If you want a life of frustration and victimhood, open a liquor store

or an insurance agency in Des Moines. [Laissez Faire Law, p.58]

There is no point in talking about amending the U.S. Constitution or limiting any of its legislative or regulatory powers. I was associated with an expat enclave of scoundrels and pirates, which is an entirely different context. "Citizenship" was not part of our constitutional vocabulary. Liberty was first and foremost.

[Brant Gaede]

Liberty or freedom can be described as having two levels: freedom to act or, if failing that, freedom to fight for freedom. Fighting for freedom, even while enjoying some freedom of action as in trade and speech, is one good measure of moral stature. Just not violating rights is ambiguous for you need to know what not violating rights is do that consistently, so why isn't one also fighting for them?

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

I'm sorry, Brant. I didn't understand what you said. Fighting who? for what exactly?

[Brant Gaede]

Fighting the statists or statism for freedom. Or knowing freedom--what that is all about--learning its value thus wanting more of it. Money can buy a lot of personal freedom most people cannot enjoy, even freedom from much overt oppression. We end up with the best way of honoring who we are. That's a human universal. For some scum such honoring honors dishonoring for that's about what they are about as human beings--dishonoring their very humanity.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Defense of innocent liberty can't be achieved verbally, although I credit Rand with opening my eyes and explaining the issue in simple language that I could understand (Atlas Shrugged). The business of action is more complex. As you said, money can buy a lot of personal freedom, at the price of becoming a Gail Wynand, or worse, Peter Keating. Most folks are happy with financial security and government protection -- or rather the illusion of security and protection. I think what we're witnessing today is a sort of stubborn indignation that Leave It To Beaver left the building, Groucho Marx and Red Skelton are dead, and thuggish barbarians somehow became celebrities in their stead. The shock of 2008 multiplied white middle class indignation. They voted for a nice black man who promised to fix everything. You and I know that behind the scenes, the Fed flooded the market with liquidity and propped up the repo market at home and abroad and made Obama look good. Hurricane Sandy made Obama look good.

There's quite a lot of Blank Out happening, commensurate with the expectation that government can fix everything.

[Selene]

Considering that slavery in America existed from 1635 to 1865, and that military conscription existed until 1973 (and persists with mandatory Selective Service registration), I think it's wide of the mark to speak of 239 years of liberty and it's balderdash in today's context, unless you're a criminal. Small business owners -- sitting ducks -- have the least liberty in America unless they cut their losses, shut the door and walk away.

If you want a life of frustration and victimhood, open a liquor store

or an insurance agency in Des Moines. [Laissez Faire Law, p.58]

You have no idea how accurate Wolf's statement above is...

A...

[Selene]

...but what we have now is a magnet for crime and sloth.

And fear driving people to another few days of survival...

15.19

The situation at Budapest’s Keleti station remained dire on Wednesday morning, 24 hours after the authorities decided to prevent people without EU visas from entering the station to board trains towards Germany, writes James Badcock at the station.

It got much worst quickly and this is the beginning...

Six portaloos appeared in the middle of the night but the sanitary conditions for the more than 1,000 migrants who are camping outside the station are still desperate, and will only get worse as long as so many people remain in what the Hungarian authorities are calling a “transit zone”.

Previously, people were using one public toilet in the underground concourse and there is one shower facility. At the office of Migration Aid, a space set up by a Hungarian organisation to help with basic supplies, a queue was growing this morning, with some families asking when the doctor would arrive. A small medical team has been operating shifts to attend to health problems.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11838407/EU-migration-crisis-Eurostar-live.html

[Selene]

Remember how Ayn described Europe in Atlas...

It is beginning...

[Peter]

Adam quoted: Previously, people were using one public toilet in the underground concourse and there is one shower facility. At the office of Migration Aid, a space set up by a Hungarian organisation to help with basic supplies, a queue was growing this morning, with some families asking when the doctor would arrive. A small medical team has been operating shifts to attend to health problems.
end quote

An illegal alien is making a quality of life and an economic decision to cross another country’s border. In contrast a refugee would need to be making a life or death choice. Stay in Syria, or any war torn country and be robbed, violated and killed or you can escape and leave for anywhere else. A camp, airport or train station may not be the best place to briefly settle but it is better than your previous location. Speed and lack of planning is the difference between a refugee and an immigrant, whether they are legal or not.

So why aren’t people in war torn countries planning to emigrate like the people in America did in covered wagons? I guess the world’s borders are more secure now. Americans had the American Indians to contend with and a refugee from Somalia or Syria must contend with European police and border guards. Cubans had to contend with our coast guard sending them back. Why don’t the refugees always migrate to the closest, least objectionable, third world country? I think the police in third world countries are more brutal and the citizen’s more xenophobic. And there is less to share.

It may have been JFK who scoffed at the Communist big lie that the Berlin Wall was there to keep Capitalists out, not communists in. Then why was the wire positioned to keep them in? Why did the guards shoot to kill those trying to leave and escape?
Peter

[Selene]

Why do you incessantly babble?

[Peter]

Adam asked: Why do you incessantly babble?
end quote

Since I was the last writer on this thread I assume you are talking to me. I was writing an essay for my sixth grade class. I want to impress my teacher, pretty Miss Baumgarten.

Olanders have started a thread for Carly and for Rand Paul who are lower in the polls than Ben Carson. I think I will start one for the good doctor.
Peter

[Selene]

Adam asked: Why do you incessantly babble?

end quote

Since I was the last writer on this thread I assume you are talking to me. I was writing an essay for my sixth grade class. I want to impress my teacher, pretty Miss Baumgarten.

Yep, so you admit that you write at a basic junior high school level - I agree...