Let put one myth to rest - Largesse for the Rich

[Chiteng]

There can be no such thing as any right to initiate force against the innocent. The majority of immigrants are innocent. The real crime is forcing them to suffer or even die from poverty by denying them access to an open labor market.

Strict immigration laws cannot be justified as self defense, as they do more harm than good even to what they purport to defend.


Public opinion is not that hard to sway. It depends heavily on how questions are framed. Most people have trouble overcoming a status quo bias. Particularly when it comes to difficult questions and when people are not well informed of the merits of each choice, most people just choose whatever is presented as the default option. Supporting current laws is most commonly seen as the default, although the true default should be the state of nature where nothing is regulated.


Perhaps, but there is nothing wrong with that. Those who advocate such a morally repugnant use of force against the innocent would-be immigrants deserve punishment much greater than a mere slap in the face.


There is no real value in defending national sovereignty. Sovereignty is a poorly defined and largely fictitious concept, as is the state itself. All rights are individual rights. In the real world, nations only exist as groups of individuals. The only valid justification for the institution of government is as a means to mitigate negative externalities and minimize the infringement of the rights of those individuals it purports to serve. Since the rights of different individuals are often in conflict, may be necessary to infringe somewhat on the rights of some; this however is only justified if doing so creates a balance that better serves the needs of the majority of its citizens. Even if we completely ignore the violence against immigrants and ascribe moral worth only to natural born citizens, tough immigration laws are not justified as they give a small advantage to a small demographic at the cost of a larger advantage to a much larger demographic of citizens.




I certainly understand it can mean that, which is why I am always careful to make it clear that I mean to say we need a liberalization of immigration law rather than such a morally repugnant course of action.

So by your logic:

If there are needy people in the world, and they want to work in the United States,
The United States has no moral authority to defend itself from invasion.

So, by logical extension: A million man Chinese army lands in San Francisco, but we are allowed to use force against that.

But an eleven million man(grossly underestimated)invasion of the USA, is immoral to defend itself against, even tho the stated objective(see La Raza)is to suborn the existing Government, and change it into something that THEY desire.

I think your insane. I think we should use whatever measures are needed to protect the country. Your name calling doesnt phase me one iota. Your logic is disgusting in its self-serving sophistry. You are an intellectual prostitute.

The people who are already here(cf CITIZENS) have rights also. If we dont want more people here that is our right.

Moderator Action: Inappropriate content highlighted.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

There is an enormous qualitative difference between a military invasion and peaceful immigration.


I am not so extreme as to say that a country should not be able to keep out those who are a known threat, due to violent criminal records, known affiliation with violent groups (including terrorists groups and hostile governments), or being carriers of dangerous/highly infectious diseases.


Of course citizens have rights. Bear in mind though, that plenty of citizens do want more immigrants to move here. Those who do not wish this have no right to prevent their fellow citizens from welcoming foreign guests. They can forbid individuals whom they do not like from trespassing on their private property, but cannot demand that other individuals discriminate based on the same terms. There is also such thing as a right of way, which demands that private property owners grant an easement to those who would otherwise be caged by the property.

I would never go so far as to say that Americans have a duty to provide jobs (or housing, or whatever) to foreigners. What we do not have is a right to forbid them from coming a mutually acceptable agreement in order to find gainful employment. This is the right both of immigrants and of the American citizens who wish to employ them.

Americans should of course have all the rights that foreigners do. Apparently what you want though is not rights at all, but special privileges for politically powerful minorities.


I don't see how my argument is supposedly self serving. (It seems far less self serving and less hypocritical than your position.) I am a natural born citizen of the United States of America, as were all of my ancestors born since the year 1840. (This of course means that none of them had to bother with any bureaucracy to enter the country legally.) On both sides of my family I have ancestors who immigrated from Europe to America before the year 1600, and on my mother's side I am 1/16th Cherokee. Some on my mother's side fought under the command of George Washington at Valley Forge. (My father's ancestors fought in the American Revolution too, but mostly on the other side. They tended to be Loyalists who fled back to England during the war only to have their grandchildren return later. My pedigree includes several colonial royal governors, including the Lord Baltimore who served as the first royal governor of Virginia before going on to found the state of Maryland.)

 

[Chiteng]

There is an enormous qualitative difference between a military invasion and peaceful immigration.


I am not so extreme as to say that a country should not be able to keep out those who are a known threat, due to violent criminal records, known affiliation with violent groups (including terrorists groups and hostile governments), or being carriers of dangerous/highly infectious diseases.


Of course citizens have rights. Bear in mind though, that plenty of citizens do want more immigrants to move here. Those who do not wish this have no right to prevent their fellow citizens from welcoming foreign guests. They can forbid individuals whom they do not like from trespassing on their private property, but cannot demand that other individuals discriminate based on the same terms. There is also such thing as a right of way, which demands that private property owners grant an easement to those who would otherwise be caged by the property.

I would never go so far as to say that Americans have a duty to provide jobs (or housing, or whatever) to foreigners. What we do not have is a right to forbid them from coming a mutually acceptable agreement in order to find gainful employment. This is the right both of immigrants and of the American citizens who wish to employ them.

Americans should of course have all the rights that foreigners do. Apparently what you want though is not rights at all, but special privileges for politically powerful minorities.


I don't see how my argument is supposedly self serving. (It seems far less self serving and less hypocritical than your position.) I am a natural born citizen of the United States of America, as were all of my ancestors born since the year 1840. (This of course means that none of them had to bother with any bureaucracy to enter the country legally.) On both sides of my family I have ancestors who immigrated from Europe to America before the year 1600, and on my mother's side I am 1/16th Cherokee. Some on my mother's side fought under the command of George Washington at Valley Forge. (My father's ancestors fought in the American Revolution too, but mostly on the other side. They tended to be Loyalists who fled back to England during the war only to have their grandchildren return later. My pedigree includes several colonial royal governors, including the Lord Baltimore who served as the first royal governor of Virginia before going on to found the state of Maryland.)

The only difference between the invasions is method. The end is the same. A land grab
by people not native to the area. Eventual takeover.

Yes your fellow citizens DO have a right to prevent you from employing illegals.
They can take your property or put you in jail, or both. It is called violating the law.

Your pedigree if real means nothing to me. It is YOU who imagines you have greater privilege not me. Numbers do matter in a Republic. The citizens want the existing laws enforced. You want your effete attitudes to replace the will of the majority.
That is NOT a Democratic attitude. It is in fact an Aristo attitude. You hold your opinion superior to the hoi polloi. Such arrogance. Remember the eventual fate of the aristo.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Immigration by itself is not a land grab. Individual immigrants would have the right to just seize property, but would have to get previous owners to agree to sell at rising prices. Those there sooner would still have an advantage.

When the government is limited in power so as not to be able to persecute minorities, then it is irrelevant what culture or ethic group is predominant. Extremely large waves of immigration are not common anyway, and minorities tend to assimilate into welcoming cultures within a generation or two.


Majorities (or even influential minorities) may have the power to legislate and enforce statutes against employing undocumented immigrants (or blacks, women, homosexuals, pacifists, etc.) through their representatives in congress if they so desire, but this does not give them a right to do so. Such legislation is fundamentally unjust, and an unjust law is no law at all. Many moral philosophers have argued that it is an ethical imperative to resist all unjust laws. Civil disobedience in the face of injustice is far preferable to compliance.


I don't think I have greater privilege than you. I think that fundamental principles matter more than mere popularity within a narrowly defined subset. Your arguments could work just as well to defend slavery, segregation, or genocide. Unrestrained democracy is not a good thing. It is tyranny of the majority, which is as antithetical to freedom as absolute monarchy. It is essential to place limits on the power that a majority can wield over minorities not strong enough to defend themselves.


Considering "aristo" technically means "best," I choose you take that description as a compliment. Unfortunately the world has never really been ruled by the best individuals, as the best have no desire to wield arbitrary power over other and those purporting to be the best are often the worst.


Happenstance of birth nothing to be proud of. It may be cause for gratitude, but should not be lorded over those less fortunate. It is not a good basis for deciding things like who should be allowed to live or vote where.

 

[Cutlass]

I think it's pretty damned ridiculous to claim illegal immigration in the US is in any way a sovereignty issue. It's not like those people are here against government policy, or anything like that. We chose to have them here.

 

[History_Buff]

Indeed. Mexico certainly isn't forcing us to take them.