Home/personal security vs. national security/immigration - A philosophical discussion
About a year ago, I met a man who had just moved in with a female friend down the street. The man had served his jail time, but was on a sexual predator list. Some neighbors tried to fundraise throughout our neighborhood to build a community play set, with the explicit intent to force this man to move out (because he would have been in violation of sexual predator laws). Without my money, the play set was built, and the man moved out.
Since then, I have thought a lot about a) the presumption of innocence, b) whether that presumption should apply to people outside my country, especially when such people are from countries for which background checks are of questionable veracity, c) what the philosophical basis (or bases) is for the presumption of innocence are.
If someone moves to my neighborhood, does that constitute an actionable threat? I think not, but I am willing to listen to the counterarguments.
What if a stranger sits in his car in the street in front of my house? What if that stranger parks in my driveway or knocks on the front door? Think about how you react when you hear your doorbell when you are not expecting visitors.
What do you do for your personal and home security? Do you own a gun (or guns)? Do you have a dog that would be considered threatening to people who ring your doorbell? Do you have a home security system? Can you hit an alarm button manually? Is that alarm very loud or silent?
Now consider people coming to your country. How much does it matter whether or not the visitor's past is verifiable? Is it reasonable to let that person in without interviewing that person carefully?
Does a person's philosophy (or faith?) matter? Especially if a person's faith says that it is OK to lie to infidels in order to accomplish larger objectives? Can persons of faith be reasoned with?
On the other hand, is it worthwhile interacting with non-Objectivists with the hope that such people might eventually change? Should such situations be viewed as opportunities, threats, both, or neither?
Just checking my premises...
Since then, I have thought a lot about a) the presumption of innocence, b) whether that presumption should apply to people outside my country, especially when such people are from countries for which background checks are of questionable veracity, c) what the philosophical basis (or bases) is for the presumption of innocence are.
If someone moves to my neighborhood, does that constitute an actionable threat? I think not, but I am willing to listen to the counterarguments.
What if a stranger sits in his car in the street in front of my house? What if that stranger parks in my driveway or knocks on the front door? Think about how you react when you hear your doorbell when you are not expecting visitors.
What do you do for your personal and home security? Do you own a gun (or guns)? Do you have a dog that would be considered threatening to people who ring your doorbell? Do you have a home security system? Can you hit an alarm button manually? Is that alarm very loud or silent?
Now consider people coming to your country. How much does it matter whether or not the visitor's past is verifiable? Is it reasonable to let that person in without interviewing that person carefully?
Does a person's philosophy (or faith?) matter? Especially if a person's faith says that it is OK to lie to infidels in order to accomplish larger objectives? Can persons of faith be reasoned with?
On the other hand, is it worthwhile interacting with non-Objectivists with the hope that such people might eventually change? Should such situations be viewed as opportunities, threats, both, or neither?
Just checking my premises...
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
We brought him to the "headquarters" and trained him. He is now one of the leading experts in the world in this kind of analysis. He married another woman, adopted her two daughters and has excellent relationships with his daughters from the first marriage.
May be that I was just lucky, but I am glad that I made that hiring decision. Needless to say, I would do it again in such circumstances.
Lesson: you have to carefully evaluate all the information that you have and take a risk.
EDIT: removed extraneous words.
I have an old fashioned security system, hard-wired, with battery backup and an encrypted cellphone connection to emergency services. It can't be hacked, like the fancier wireless systems, and cutting phone lines or power doesn't bypass it. The alarm is high decibel, and can wake the dead.
We have the means to observe people at the door without opening it, and it is secure from being kicked in. Having a threatening looking dog isn't necessary. My standard poodles could be quite menacing if necessary, and most career criminals say it isn't the threat, but the noise of a barking dog that usually stops a break-in. Even a tiny yorkie yapper alerts the home to intruders, and the element of surprise is lost.
I believe everyone should have the means for self protection. I adhere to the dictum that when harm is seconds away, the police will be there in minutes. The type of weapon varies, but it should be easy to operate, and effective enough at short range to discourage an intruder. For those squeamish about shooting someone, there are very potent multi-shot pepper or CS gas dispensers at a reasonable price.
If I believe someone poses a threat, I don't care what sex, color, politics, or religion they are. I will act to protect my family. As for refugees, I believe they should be judged on the same basis as those seeking legal immigration, and I believe we should apply the same conditions as most other successful nations: the candidate has to prove they can support themselves, and not become an immediate burden on our economy.
As tpo your questions concerning immigrants. I would prefer to take a position of cautious optimism. Screen them as best as possible, deny the obvious villains, keep close track on all accepted immigrants, deport ALL who seem to pose a threat and execute any proven dangerous.
Personally, I think that convicts who have properly paid their "debt to society" and served their sentence should be allowed back into society, but I make several observations I believe relevant:
1. Our prison systems are doing a lousy job of actually helping convicts reform. We currently re-arrest more than 50% of criminals within the first year following their release. (https://www.nij.gov/topics/correction...) We should be demanding better from our prison system. But we run into a problem there because change requires incentive and acceptance of personal responsibility most easily effected by religion, and we have largely removed mandatory religious counseling from our prisons.
2. Our social laws are doing a lousy job of teaching and encouraging positive behaviors. Statistics continue to show that those most likely to end up in prison are those without a father in the home. Yet society passes laws that encourage the welfare state and a lack of responsibility in men to care for their offspring.
3. Those released from prison need a support system to prevent recidivism. Gangs exist to glorify incarceration and encourage more law-breaking behavior. The only way to defeat the gangs is to provide an alternative support structure to released convicts that can help them re-adjust to real life in society. And only the religious community seems able and willing to take on this role.
The sovereign people should also be held to a higher standard before being allowed to vote. There should be a waiting period for immigrants and a test for understanding the issues and American philosophy before anyone is allowed to vote but that is a different can of worms.
If you do not agree with open borders, then you must rationally decide what factors are desirable and what factors are undesirable. Open movement between the states is desirable, so the rules for immigration must be uniform for all states. No state (nor the executive or judicial branches of the federal government) should be allowed to weaken the immigration standards established by the US congress or to selectively choose not to enforce them.
No small community should be selected to receive the settlement of immigrants in excess of an amount per capita to the US population.
Quicker resettlement of refugees from war zones should not be a factor used to determine if an immigrant is worthy when compared to immigrants from other locales.
Yes, an immigrant person's philosophy is a valid factor to consider and his choice of religion is part of his philosophy.
A very high degree of security vetting should be required for all immigrants.
Regarding reacting with religious or irrational people, IMHO most rational people have at least some irrationality and vice versa. I think irrationality, esp little tricks where people think they've reasoned something but are actually doing post hoc rationalization, is more common than it seems.