Facts on Open Immigration

Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 4 months ago to Politics
32 comments | Share | Flag

It is important to look at facts. I only had to google "nations with open borders" and choose these citations from the many links offered. As this is a forum for Objectivists, allow me to suggest a cautionary argument from Understanding Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binwanger. Answering a student's question, Peikoff warned against "monism" attempting to derive all truths from A is A by pure logic. Answering another question about the hierarchy of knowledge, Peikoff said that you cannot make metaphysics antecedent to epistemology: reason and reality must always be tied to each other. So, too, here I point out that Harry Binswanger's blogpost advocating for open immigration does describe the United States of the near-capitalist 19th century, We had open borders. We also defended our national sovereignty against the United Kingdom (and lesser threats). Similarly, living as I do in Texas, when we were a republic, we declared and then defended our sovereignty in part specifically to have open immigration.

A Harsh Climate Calls for Banishment of the Needy
The key to Svalbard’s status as probably Europe’s closest thing to a crime-free society, according to the governor, is that unemployment is in effect illegal. “If you don’t have a job, you can’t live here,” Mr. Ingero said, noting that the jobless are swiftly deported. Retirees are sent away, too, unless they can prove they have sufficient means to support themselves.

Although governed by Norway, a country that prides itself on offering cradle-to-grave state support for its needy citizens, Svalbard, an archipelago of islands in the high Arctic, embraces a model that is closer to the vision of Ayn Rand than the Scandinavian norm of generous welfare protection.Even Longyearbyen’s socialist mayor, Christin Kristoffersen, a member of the Labour Party, wants the town — named after an American industrialist, John Munro Longyear, who founded it in 1906 — to stay off limits to all but the able-bodied and gainfully employed. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/wo...

How Open Borders Died in Five Countries
By Bryan Caplan
https://www.econlib.org/how-open-bord...
This is a summary from a free market perspective of this journal article:
"Immigration Policy Prior to the 1930s: Labor Markets, Policy Interactions, and Globalization Backlash" by Ashley S. Timmer and Jeffrey G. Williams
Population and Development Review
Vol. 24, No. 4 (Dec., 1998), pp. 739-771

The Case for Immigation
IN his novel “Exit West”, Mohsin Hamid describes a world very like our own, but which is suddenly changed by the appearance of mysterious doors. A dark-skinned man falls out of an Australian woman’s wardrobe in Sydney. Filipino women emerge from the back door of a bar into the alleyways of Tokyo. As the incidents multiply and scores of people from poor countries walk through the doors into richer ones, rich-world inhabitants respond with violent resistance. Governments crack down hard on the new arrivals. But it is not long before they are overwhelmed by their sheer number and abandon efforts to repel them. The world settles into an uneasy new equilibrium. Shantytowns emerge on the slopes of San Francisco Bay. Conflicts in war-torn places burn out for want of civilians to kill and exploit.

Mr Hamid’s story comes close to what many advocates of open borders believe the world would look like if people were free to move wherever they wanted: fairer, freer, with more opportunities for a larger number of people. But it also nods to the fears many people have about unfettered migration: uncertainty, disorder, violence. Would such a world be a dream or a nightmare? The answer depends on whom you ask.
https://www.economist.com/open-future...


All Comments

  • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 4 months ago
    I am fascinated by remote arctic locations. I think a new free country would be in a place remote enough to be left alone but not so remote to restrict trade and immigration. I believe trade and immigration are the key to creating wealth. Restriction of people moving and trading is the road to poverty.

    I like the notion of arctic because I imagine their being no spoils of looting them. Their wealth is in using technology. As long as they keep the spirit of liberty, they keep creating wealth, and it’s easier to trade with them than to try to steal their stuff. I imagine them having no standing army but rather citizen’s with arms, repair kits, and medical kits, that can be called on a moment’s notice. It’s basically what I think America was supposed to be.

    The TV show Fortuitude takes place in Svalbard and was filmed in eastern Iceland. I liked the first part of it, but I stopped watching it when it took on more horror qualities.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    MikeMarotta writes: do not include Buddhists among the peaceful religions
    Hmm. Individual Buddhists may be violent and warlike, it is not a characteristic of their culture or religion. Are there sayings of Buddha, or the commentaries or other texts that promote or advocate violence?

    If I wanted to argue against this aspect of Buddhism I would note the failure of India's ruling class, mainly Buddhist at the time, to stop the Islamic onslaught. Some historians put the resultant death count at hundreds of millions. Resistance to aggression may be violent but would be described usually as rational.

    About Christianity. I recall- throw the money men out of the temple, and I come with a sword. Have I missed anything substantial?
    Christians are to be commended for resisting aggression in three decisive battles- Tours (y732), Lepanto (y1571), Vienna (y1683). But now (y2018), Europe and the West are in cultural decay, leaders of the big Christian denominations are complicit. The same enemy is winning and open borders are their prime weapon.

    Thanks for the USA culture enlightenment about the chaplain's flag, I am suitably horrified.
    (ewv elaboration noted - thanks)
    There is the conscientious objector relief from military service for citizens. Good. But would you allow in those who will not serve in your military but will join death-cult militia overseas, who will not stand for the judge in court and do not recognize that court, who say that women not dressed to their standards are fresh meat so deserve rape, and so on? (Most of) Such positions are taken from the central text which is sealed, being not history, not guidelines, but commands.

    'It is not the group but the kind of individual', sounds good but I do not follow. Freckles or skin color are no guide of character, but is religion like freckles, or is it chosen or accepted? Should communists, fascists or mafia members be individually evaluated with current and avowed memberships and loyalty not admissable as evidence?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    MikeMarotta: "You need to objectively understand the United States of America and its culture. Many Christians (and others) place religious precepts above civil law. First, by military customs and courtesies, no flag ever flies higher than the American flag, except the chaplain's pennant when services are being held. That shows that American civil law is subordinate to religion."

    Where a flag is does not "show that American civil law is subordinate to religion". Flags are symbolic at ceremonies, not "civil law". There have been incidents of religious privilege over law that should not exist, and some religious conservatives advocate that as a principle, but American civil law is not "subordinate to religion" and ceremonial flags do not show otherwise.

    MikeMarotta: "... some in America refuse to serve in the military on religious grounds: 'thou shallt not kill' and 'turn the other cheek' and all that. They are conscientious objectors above civil law. And you do not need religion for that. Objectivists - nominally atheists - have also refused to answer the call to selective service on 'philosophical' grounds."

    There has been no requirement to serve in the military in the US since conscription was abolished nearly half a century ago in 1973, and therefore there is no conscientious objector status required or recognized to refuse to serve. (Those already enlisted voluntarily may apply for non-combatant status under some circumstances.)

    "Conscientious objection" to stay out before conscription was abolished did require belief in religion as "a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by an orthodox belief in God" as the basis for opposing "all wars"; there was no recognized "selective conscientious objector status" for a particular war regardless of religious belief, and no conscientious objector status at all for non-religious reasons. "Registration" for the draft is still required in case Congress re-instates it, and if the draft is re-instated a recognized religious belief opposing all wars is the standard that will still apply for conscientious objector status unless the law is changed. It is highly unlikely that the requirement to oppose all wars would be removed, or that philosophical objections, especially non-religious, to conscription would be recognized for anything but grounds for imprisonment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    MikeMarotta: " What is the difference between philosophy and religion? Is there a test? Maybe it is like obscenity: you cannot define it, but know it when you see it."

    Religion is a crude form of philosophy, characterized by faith and belief in the supernatural. You don't have to see it to know that principle. Some more comprehensive philosophers (like Augustine as an extreme example) have combined both.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    MikeMarotta: "You evade the challenge by saying that it is too complicated for you to consider... You have no idea what you mean by what you propose. You just have a feeling that the border needs to be protected against incursion -- and I can agree with that much - but you refuse to identify any essential distinguishing characteristics of an incursion or invasion."

    Contrary to your sweeping personal accusations I did not say immigration is "too complicated" for me "to consider", I do not "have no idea what I mean," which is not "just a feeling", I have not "refused to identify" anything, rejecting anarchism is not "contradictory" and does not "preemptorally" violate the rights of innocent people, and I do not "complain but cite no facts" -- all as anyone can read for himself in the several posts I have written about the topic on this forum for years, including this thread, and which is considerably more than irrelevant historical pendantry claimed to be "factual groundwork for rational discussion" in supposed contrast to my posts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    MikeMarotta: "You toss out the word "anarchy" very freely and it is time to call that smear for what it is. Harry Binswanger is in by no definition an anarchist. He is an Objectivist whose credentials are well-known and speak highly for him."

    "Border anarchy" means no laws governing crossing the border. That is what "open borders" means, anything goes at the border. Harry Binswanger advocates a "policy of absolutely open immigration, without border patrols, border police, border checks, or passports. After a phase-in period, entry into the U.S. would be unrestricted, unregulated, and unscreened." He says "Amnesty for Illegal aliens is not enough, they deserve an apology." That is open border anarchism.

    That characterization of his position is not a "smear" and not "tossing out the word 'anarchy' very freely", it's from his own words on his own blog, which could not be clearer. His position is an embarrassment to Objectivism -- only because of his reputation for his association; otherwise no one would care. It is not what Ayn Rand supported, for good reason. The right to migrate does not imply open border anarchy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -3
    Posted by $ 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You toss out the word "anarchy" very freely and it is time to call that smear for what it is. Harry Binswanger is in by no definition an anarchist. He is an Objectivist whose credentials are well-known and speak highly for him.

    You evade the challenge by saying that it is too complicated for you to consider. Well, ok, we can accept that. You have no idea what you mean by what you propose. You just have a feeling that the border needs to be protected against incursion -- and I can agree with that much - but you refuse to identify any essential distinguishing characteristics of an incursion or invasion.

    You complain but you cite no facts. Allow me to provide some factual groundwork for a rational discussion.
    Part 3: 1820-1959

    Early records relating to immigration originated in regional customhouses. The U.S. Customs Service conducted its business by designating collection districts. Each district had a headquarters port with a customhouse and a collector of customs, the chief officer of the district.

    An act of March 2, 1819 (3 Stat. 489) required the captain or master of a vessel arriving at a port in the United States or any of its territories from a foreign country to submit a list of passengers to the collector of customs, beginning January 1, 1820. The act also required that the collector submit a quarterly report or abstract, consisting of copies of these passenger lists, to the Secretary of State, who was required to submit such information at each session of Congress. After 1874, collectors forwarded only statistical reports to the Treasury Department. The lists themselves were retained by the collector of customs. Customs records were maintained primarily for statistical purposes.

    On August 3, 1882, Congress passed the first Federal law regulating immigration (22 Stat. 214-215); the Secretary of the Treasury had general supervision over it between 1882 and 1891. The Office of Superintendent of Immigration in the Department of the Treasury was established under an act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1085), and was later designated a bureau in 1895 with responsibility for administering the alien contract-labor laws. In 1900 administration of the Chinese-exclusion laws was added.

    https://www.archives.gov/research/imm...

    In fact, the United States had 328 ports of entry. We look at Ellis Island and we can read the archived records. But as shown above during the great age of near laissez faire, such records were rare. Harbor masters submitted abstracts and statistical summaries to Washington. Did criminals and terrorists come here? Probably. They were dealt with as you stated in your reply to Lucky as individuals who had committed crimes -- when they commited crimes.. So, you contradict yourself: you admit that the government can only act in retaliation against those who violate the rights of others, but you want to pre-emptorally prevent the entry of such people into America ahead of their actions.

    On the other hand, I have provided facts and reasons to explain them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Government should have no role in dictating acceptable thought, let alone philosophy. Religion is a crude form of philosophy and must not have either special privileges or prohibition from government. If someone is a threat then it doesn't matter what his religion is in keeping him out. His religion may provide evidence if zealously adhered to, but the criterion is the threat, not a religious test of belief. Neither is Galt's oath a proper test (if such a test were applied consistently the continent would be quickly emptied to numbers far smaller than the original natives!).

    This is analogous to the older immigration criterion of preventing the mentally ill because they are a threat ranging from their own actions to a burden to be cared for. Religious zealots such as we have seen from the Muslim world are so out of the bounds of ability to think and act rationally and civilly that they are a form of mental illness and an obvious threat.

    Likewise, the zealots seeking Sharia law or terrorism come under the categories of both a criminal threat and Immigration laws "excluding and deporting aliens who advocate the overthrow of the Government by force and violence" -- except that the problem is broader now because large enough numbers coming into a country do not require the crude violence. When allowed to congregate in untouchable ghettos, let alone vote, their danger is more fundamental than 1920s anarchists as followers of Kropotkin.

    But even some Muslims are civilized professionals who should not be excluded because of religious belief. More difficult is the consequences of what they would become in large enough numbers changing the form of government.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I did answer the question. No one can provide you with a major legal theory complete with a code of laws within a post here. Demanding that evades the fact that starting from an anarchist premise and demanding refutation is not logical. The rationalistic tour de farce linked to as the subject of this thread, claiming that "sovereignty" does not include protecting the border from anarchy is not the starting point or standard of discussion of immigration, and does not address the very real problems with current immigration policy. Those are the facts we start with. The Binswanger article is irrelevant.

    The principle we start with is the defense of the rights of the individual against an obvious threat to the ability to have a nation that maintains its sovereignty in protecting the rights of the citizens, not anarchy. As in any law, the solution is not discovering and proving an intrinsicist solution; formulating proper laws involves options and ranges in many realms, in this case ranging from how to identify criminals and terrorists crossing the border, to how to limit the shear numbers of people that can be reasonably tolerated. Self defense against expanding international, multiculturalist welfare statism under the guise of immigration is a much broader problem because it is invasion by invitation by the left within our own country.

    But the first step now in this context is to reject the false premise that Harry Binswanger's rationalism for "open border" anarchy with a so-called "conceptual framework" "separating sovereignty from immigration" is valid, let alone the default position requiring a burden of proof to overthrow. It is rationalistic irrelevancy.,
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -3
    Posted by $ 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You did not answer the question:
    "... do you have any objective "degree and kind of restrictions" based on "what kind of people are coming for what purpose and in what numbers"? "
    and
    "... by separating sovereignty from immigration. The intersection would be what you propose: laws regulating immigration. Please propose them."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The article's "conceptual framework" is pure rationalism, a sequence of strained equivocations and floating abstractions arguing that "sovereignty" excludes control of the borders for everything except a foreign government directly trying to establish its own "jurisdiction" within the US. That is his false built-in premise for "open borders" -- as if US "jurisdiction" for its own laws cannot apply within the "jurisdiction" as long as a foreign government isn't trying to impose it's own laws here. What good is a "jurisdiction" if laws cannot be applied within it? His rationalism smacks of the usual rationalism for anarchy. It's hard for a sensible person to read without his ears wilting.

    It ignores all the well-known problems, including even terrorists, criminal gangs, forced welfare state redistribution, and the threat of an influx from a world population, with no concept of American individualism, outnumbering us by more than 10 to 1 in our own country. It even throws in the standard utopian 'libertarian" argument blaming all criminal problems on "the drug war".

    Its rationalism is the opposite of Ayn Rand's reality-based insights and principles. That is why the article is "armchair philosophizing" -- except including the word "philosophy" may be too generous.

    There are many problems in implementing rational immigration laws, ranging from identifying criminals and terrorists to the uphill battle against the left in this country that insists on making this country a multiculturalist international welfare central through any means possible, including an invasion by invitation bringing in enough illiterates to vote for socialism in order to overthrow what is left of our country. None of that is addressed by rationalizing that government "jurisdiction" does not include protecting the borders unless a foreign government tries to impose its own laws here.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your argument is illogical and lacking a factual basis, regardless of how I also share your sympathy for the mostly harmless Yaziidi. (Not living among them, we do not know their actual culture.) Also, on that note, do not include Buddhists among the peaceful religions. It depends on a lot. And do not include Christians.

    You need to objectively understand the United States of America and its culture. Many Christians (and others) place religious precepts above civil law. First, by military customs and courtesies, no flag ever flies higher than the American flag, except the chaplain's pennant when services are being held. That shows that American civil law is subordinate to religion.

    Moreover, some in America refuse to serve in the military on religious grounds: "thou shallt not kill" and "turn the other cheek" and all that. They are conscientious objectors above civil law. And you do not need religion for that. Objectivists - nominally atheists - have also refused to answer the call to selective service on "philosophical" grounds. What is the difference between philosophy and religion? Is there a test? Maybe it is like obscenity: you cannot define it, but know it when you see it.

    On the other hand, there are those in the military, especially at the USAF Academy, who force fundamentalist Protestant religion on those under their command.

    And at the same time, I serve with Muslims who adhere to all customs and courtesies, including shaving their beards and moustaches as directed by orders for proper wear.

    So, it does not matter which religious group you may seem "to come from" as perceived by an outsider, but, basically, and objectively, what kind of individual you are. What is your test for that?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ArtIficiarius 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Perhaps only tangential, but just maybe:
    www.linkedin/pulse/amendment-promote-free-enterprise-concord-green/ .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good comment, but, yes, there should be a religious test. Religion is part of relating to others. Having a religion that requires killing apostates, that regards the life liberty and property of non-believers as subject to your key texts which is above the law of the land should rule out entry.
    Such a believer could not honestly take Galts' Oath.
    There are religions that are so esoteric that understanding with words is probably impossible, yet the adherants can lead peaceful, tolerant and productive lives. Consider the Yazidis, recent victims of ISIS/IL in Iraq, the religion seems weird and primitive to me but even if that is correct it would not prevent them becoming good citizens.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If, as we agree, government cannot dictate the philosophy, religion, "race," nationality, or ethnicity immigrants, then do you have any objective "degree and kind of restrictions" based on "what kind of people are coming for what purpose and in what numbers"?

    Prison is internal exile. Russia had and has Siberia. We could externally exile all law-breakers at some level, say, three felonies, or whatever. We have Amreican bases in the Antarctic, we have Alaska. Have yiou ever been to west Texas? Miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles.

    So, we could let everyone come to the Land of Opportunity, but if you break the laws, then out (or in) you go.

    But if you have objective laws for the control of immigration, please offer them.

    Harry Binswanger did not engage in "armchair philosophizing." He presented part of a conceptual framework for understanding the problem, by separating sovereignty from immigration. The intersection would be what you propose: laws regulating immigration. Please propose them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Protecting the rights of the individual in a free society requires a rational immigration policy, not "closing the borders" against all immigration to "seal us in". There cannot be a religious requirement. Government cannot dictate philosophy at all let alone require some variety of religious faith and dogma. The degree and kind of restrictions depend on what kind of people are coming for what purpose and in what numbers, not racism or a required religion.

    The article you linked to at http://www.hbletter.com/what-is-natio... promoting "open borders" with no restrictions at all is not a standard which must be refuted to justify any restriction. That article is arm-chair philosophizing trying to rationalize a sweeping policy without regard to facts and the real problems.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Examples of nations who did not control immigration and are now subservient:

    Sweden- no-go areas for police or even fire fighting services, large scale rioting and burning of motor vehicles while police watch but do not intervene, sexual assault and rape now three times that of 10 years ago, the cultural identity of perpetrators forbidden to be reported.

    Germany- since 2016, public events such as New Year celebrations curtailed or very heavily policed with women no longer free to travel alone or in small groups.

    France, large no-go areas, mass riots with vehicle burning and no police intervention. (The current large riot is not largely new migrants but an outcome of government pandering to EU ideology, the people are resisting?).

    UK- Rotherham (1,400 child victims in this town), Rochdale, Oxford, Peterborough, Aylesbury, Bristol, Telford, Halifax, Keighley, Banbury, Newcastle, Derby, Huddersfield .. young women raped, beaten and trafficked, some of them children. Hundreds of cases. Authorities- police, social welfare, schools, will not act. A 12 yo girl was forcibly removed from her care home, staff acquiesed. Parents arrested for trying to rescue daughters from warehouses. An 8yo girl asked to be in a school project group that spoke English, police were called, the girl was interrogated and held even after school closed for the day. Quoting Churchill can lead to arrest. Anyone making general criticism leads to their condemnation as racist.

    Those who you may not criticize are they who control you.

    Liberty, freedom, free trade, free minds, therefore open borders.. Does not follow ..
    To quote Churchill:
    However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    nickursis :"This all ties together, and the people pushing the open borders are the same ones with "sanctuary cities and states" and get the sheeple to vote for them with promises of continued programs like state retirement programs that are bigger than any company ones, free stuff and people educated to believe the state is the answer to anything."

    MikeMarotta: "Absolutely not true was the original essay cited at top comes from Harry Binswanger, an Objectivist who does not propose more free stuff."

    Harry Binswanger has no influence on and does not represent the sanctuary cities-open borders movement, which is predominantly leftist multiculturalist-welfare statist. Most individualists do not support "open borders" (including Ayn Rand).

    MikeMarotta quoting Ayn Rand: "'You don’t know my conception of self-interest. No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any “self-interest” that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’t claim that anything others may do — for example, simply through competition — is against your self-interest. But above all, aren’t you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed? (Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, edited by Robert Mayhew, p. 25.)" --https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2017/02/...

    "Do you think that Ayn Rand wanted free stuff for everyone?"

    This statement by Ayn Rand has been discussed several times on this forum and does not mean "open borders". https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

    In opposing "closed borders" for economic protectionism Ayn Rand did not advocate today's "open borders" leftist movement. Banning all or most immigration from everywhere (or some specific region like Russia or China) for economic protectionism or racism - versus allowing anyone to come in any numbers for any motive under border anarchy - is a false alternative.

    Ayn Rand was responding to a question on immigration and economic protectionism, not the principles of immigration in general, and not today's problems of screening out terrorists and gangs, multiculturalism, welfare magnetism, and what amounts to an invasion by enormous numbers of illiterates who do not understand or support American individualism and would replace it with tribalism (by invitation from the American left).

    Protecting against those threats to the rights of the individual while allowing immigration with essentially no other restrictions is neither "open borders" nor "closed borders". The right to immigrate -- fleeing stagnation and oppression to live where one wants in physical reality (anywhere on earth for now) does not mean anarchy or taking over a relatively free country for collectivism/statism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 4 months ago
    This is a very difficult subject , I can see. I find it easier to think of it in terms of my house and my neighborhood. If its really MY property, then I should be the one to decide who comes onto it or not- period. Immigrants who want to squat on my property need to be approved by me, and me only.

    I would like to live in a gated community of like minded people who would agree to a set of principles before buying properties within the gates, and who would also agree to sell only to other people who also agreed to the same set. That is kind of the situation with an HOA. Again, no unfettered immigration would be allowed.

    Expand it to a whole town, and things can get difficult when there are common places like parks and streets. But, they could be privately owned also, eliminating the problems.

    It possibly could be the case that this idea would not work anymore as it was expanded in scope with more and more people. Issues could arise if some people violated the rules- what to do with them.

    In any event, this is an interesting discussion, but I dont see much changing in the real world, at least so long as I am still here.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 6 years, 4 months ago
    If the society were a libertarian republic it wouldn't matter from where people came or with what ideas because they wouldn't be able to implement them with the use of force. When there is any form of government, especially a democracy, where the use of violence can be used to institute slavery then it will be. If no corruptible government exists then it would be irrelevant. Sealing borders by corrupt governments is more about controlling the people within and preventing their exodus.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 6 years, 4 months ago
    Facts matter: information from the census bureau (yes, they continue to collect data between the ten year reports) indicates that 63% of non-citizens in the U.S. rely on government assistance programs. Worse, 70% of those who have spent over ten years here rely on those programs, so residency doesn't seem to incentivize self support. The report didn't distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, but it does indicate that they are more takers than producers.

    Assimilation is failing in the U.S. because of our generous welfare programs. Without the incentive to learn English and join a diverse workforce, it is no longer unusual to find second, and even third generation residents whose primary language is other than English. Immigrant enclaves used to be a result of prejudice, but now they are seen as a way of retaining one's culture, even when the practices of those non-American cultures are abusive. Honor killings among Middle Eastern cultures in America are uncomfortably commonplace. Female genital mutilation takes place with regularity among Muslim-African enclaves here in the U.S., in spite of condemnation of the practice by American Imams.

    Sanctuary cities save no one except the gangs and cartel members, who savagely abuse the innocent in their own cultural enclaves. These thugs aren't being held accountable because witnesses won't testify against them for fear of their own lives.

    Open borders are a path to the destruction of order and affluence. In South and Central America alone there are 35 million who wish to relocate to the U.S., and if the caravans are seen as a promising way to achieve that goal, we will be swamped by hordes of takers.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Mike, remember the framework, in 1650 or so, America was just a wild continent, there was no "social conscious", in fact, if there ever was one, it was a manipulation of emotions for other purposes. By strict logic the U.S. has been an occupied country, and all non Indians must leave. Will you? Or me? No, so the issue needs context. As population increases, new structure must evolve. In the 1900's when the average age was low, and labor was manual the chain migration was greeted by the political establishment as a source of easy labor. Even today, the deep state wants them for their factories and farms, as well as the disruption aiding the goal of one world government run by them. Thus, they get invited in, but nothing much is done for them except jobs in low level labor. No route to citizenship (which could have been easy had they wanted to do it). Thus we are where we are, but just because it worked 100 years ago does not make it work today. It is population pressure and oppressive governments causing a lot of this, and the deep state is probably up to it's neck in it everywhere's, since it all aids their agenda.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Israel has as neighbors millions of people who do not think the country should exist and that the Jews should not live there. Since their ancestors lived in that area, they arguably have the "right to return" in any case, if you have an open border then they all come across and at the next democratic election it becomes an Islamic country and the Jews are told to leave.

    People who come to America do not leave their old cultures behind. Most large cities have enclaves where the population, stores, signs, etc. are all from the old country. A bit of this doesn't cause too much trouble and gives us nice restaurants, but becoming American used to be more important to immigrants than it is today.

    And the other issue is that Socialism looks like a really good system of government when the shelves of the stores are full of goods. A flood of people to implement that Socialism and get those goods would then result in the logical consequences -- no one would put goods on the shelves anymore.

    I think immigration is essential, and having people who have the gumption to leave their homes to make a future in a new place is good for us. But we either must allow everyone on the planet who wants to come here do so, or we have to have some rules -- and follow them.

    You seem to be of the "y'all come" approach. Do you have any feeling for how many people would immigrate if everyone could. This is no longer the era of steamships, almost everyone on the planet is 48 hours or less from the U.S.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    By this logic, no one should have left England. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 brought the Bill of Rights of 1689. Don't come to America, fix England. Tell that to the Irish... Millions of people came to American from places that were not "nations" in any modern sense of the word.

    N:" "It's your country, you own it, you broke it, you fix it". That is also a root cause reason for the "open border" argument, they have been told of wonderland, and invited in, by people who do not plan on doing anything to help them."

    If I were a Rohingya and I had a snowball's chance in hell of coming to America, why would I pass that up for the chance to fix Myanmar? I mean, I agree, Myanmar needs fixing, but I place that burden on the shoulders of others. But it is not up to the individual to "fix" society. That is a collectivist way of looking at the problem. In fact, it is the very complaint that you voiced above. "... so the people running that show can reshape it in their own image."

    N: "... and invited in, by people who do not plan on doing anything to help them."

    Well, that is not exactly true. It is just that the plans to help are massive govenmentalist programs that cannot work, as opposed to the more direct voluntary community-based social organizations of the 19th century. Those, too, however, were the creations of altruists. That underscores some of the problems with this discussion. In the later 19th and early 20th centuries when the doors to immigration were being closed, you had to have a sponsor, someone who would accept responsibility for your not becoming a "public charge." (Only native-born Americans were allowed to be public charges.) Typically, that was a family member. Now, however, the anti-immigrationists are opposed to "serial immigration" where family members bring each other over, even though that was the norm 100 years ago.


    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo