The Founders on immigration policy
Madison was asked about the kinds of immigrants sought after:
“Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.”
“Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.”
"Fundamental change."
In a 1790 House debate on naturalization, James Madison opined: “It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable?”
No, not because “diversity” is our greatest value. No, not because Big Business needed cheap labor. And no, Madison asserted;
“Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.”
Madison argued plainly that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”
Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2015/12/immig...
On this issue, I agree with James Madison over Objectivism.
Why would this not be considered an Objectivist position? Can you or someone make this make sense?
I'm coming at it from an employers perspective. I asked myself, is there any difference in letting someone into our country and letting someone work for my company? Seem to me the answer is no. Objectively, I would not hire someone who would not provide a value to my company and especially would not hire them if their intent was to destroy it. Why would that be any different to a country? As far as the travel, I could give a tour to a potential hire but would not even consider it if I knew for a fact that they wanted to do harm to me. Is that not Objectivist? If not where an I wrong?
Ayn Rand defended the right to immigrate, as a basic human right, in the context of normal life and normal economic affairs in a free country, and that is all she said about it. Specifically she properly opposed blocking people from coming to the country out of protectionist fear that they would compete.
There is much more to the broader question of immigration as a legal principle, especially with today's problems, which were not an issue in 1973 and which Ayn Rand was not asked about when she spoke about it in a brief response to a question about protectionism for economic interests. She was not discussing hoards of religious primitives coming to this country for welfare and/or the spread of sharia law. She simply rejected using force to prevent another human individual from peacefully pursing his own economic interests by moving from one country to another.
She defended the right to immigrate based on the rights of the individual, which apply to every human being peacefully pursuing his own interests. She did not base it on a "right to travel", which is a derivative principle. "Travel" is only one aspect of freedom of physical action and movement, which is a consequence of the right to live here in a material reality, and does not require much discussion. She did not publicly discuss a philosophy of a "right to travel" at all, let alone as a basis of immigration. (She did once disparage the leftist hippie mentality for objecting to the legal necessity of passports.)
1. Her sole public statement on immigration was in a spontaneous answer to the question on protectionism at her 1973 Ford Hall lecture on censorship. I don't know if the question period is included in the recording, but you can listen to the recording at https://estore.aynrand.org/p/16/censo....
The edited transcript is in Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of her Q&A, edited by Robert Mayhew, 2005, p. 25. The question addressed there is: "What is your attitude towards immigration? Doesn't open immigration have a negative effect on a country's standard of living?"
The topic is expanded on by Leonard Peikoff in two of his podcasts:
2. "What is the proper government attitude toward immigration?" 7/5/10, 10 min http://www.peikoff.com/2010/07/05/wha...
3. "You said that if a country had laissez-faire it should not control immigration. What if New Zealand, with a population of 4.5 million people, had laissez-faire? Would it be obligated to accept all immigrants, even if that resulted in its becoming Muslim and having Sharia imposed?" 9/13/10, 4 3/4 min.
Perhaps this will put to rest the false alternatives that either the country should restrict immigration on the conservatives' collectivist grounds of what is best for the "economy" versus the misrepresentations that "Objectivism" promotes "open immigration" no matter what -- including terrorists, welfare statists, and supporters of sharia law -- based on a "right to travel" in border anarchy or anything else.
Myself, I start from a basic property rights standpoint. If you do not own the rights to a particular property or item, you may only use such as a guest by permission of the owner. That includes crossing "public" properties such as roads, sidewalks, etc. As a citizen, we hold property rights by virtue of ownership - even in cases of public property. We have joint rights of ownership according to the agreed-upon communal usage of the property. However, if one is not a party to that ownership agreement, one is then relegated to "guest" status. That guest may be granted conditional use of communal property pursuant to their status as a guest, but they retain no right of use in any amount whatsoever. The only granting of right of use comes by ownership - either by outright purchase or by inclusion into the group of owners through citizenship.
arm yourself with knowledge of what islam/muslim represents...intolerance, hate, and destruction...read "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali...go to her website...www.ayaanhirsiali.org...
I expect promulgators of this conspiracy theory to now produce evidence of the Japanese military leadership saying 'I was under orders, US President Roosevelt fostered me to do it'.
bh0 does not belong because he has no respect for you and I, etc. I also submit there are many who walk the halls of congress who do not belong any more than him. Yes he 0 is a catalyst working on the destruction of the nation but he sure does have a lot of help.
On the topic of religion-based screening of immigration, it is not necessary. All you need to do is apply the general immigration rules, taking the usual amount of time and voila! you have no immigration problem. The Problem is in trying to stuff thousands of people (Mexican or Syrian) through the immigration process in a hurry. Don't do that!
There is a subsequent problem of whether or not the newcomers integrate into the American culture. What is the answer to that: Law. They have to abide by the same laws as everyone else (no sharia) and since English is the Common Tongue of the US, and they have to speak it to become citizens...that is the way it is. Insofar as keeping their own culture distinct is concerned: I Like Oktoberfest.
Jan, xenophile
I agree with you on the application of immigration law and processing and how one set of rules will apply. What I found is interesting is that we already have the immigration laws on the books which require legal immigrants to integrate into society. The problem is that those laws have to be enforced, and the current administration is loathe to do that. You point that out well in your last paragraph.
This source is the easiest to figure amounts per annum and from which countries. Something around 1.4 million per year allowed not counting illegals.
http://cis.org/2000-2010-record-setti...
U.S. Immigration Data - migrationpolicy.org
Adwww.migrationpolicy.org/
Immigration to the United States -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...
www.migrationpolicy.org/... 12/12/15
Mexican Immigrants in the United States
www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mexic...
Western European faded after the 60's and Eastern Europeans have also fade in numbers as their economies improve and ours sinks.
Some spikes such as those for Central America are the result of TPS or temporary protective status.
One could argue that simply having more people will make us richer and stronger regardless of who let into the country. Granted we would let in some trouble makers but overall most people are good and will serve their community well.
I think a better principle in recognizing the basic human right on mobility. The principle being any human has the right to live and work wherever they want as long they respect other people rights. Our immigration policy should reflect that principle.
And such an argument can easily be debunked simply by looking at the costs of illegal immigration today. Welfare, education, and the medical system all suffer disproportionately.
"The principle being any human has the right to live and work wherever they want..."
No, they don't actually. They have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, but there are no guarantees - implied or otherwise. People have the right to control and apply themselves, but how they apply themselves is a subjective decision.
"...as long they respect other people rights."
And that is the key. We must all respect the rights of others if we expect ours to be held sacrosanct. That includes the right to property - beginning with ourselves.
For the second point, I was merely stating a principle from which government policy should follow from. Obviously, people who immigrate to the United States need to be vented and it would hurt to roll back the warfare state at the same time...
It is NOT a natural right for anyone to become an American...we are a far cry from that now but not to late to change.
Or, in the Christian context: "Don't throw your pearls before swine."
If we allow Islamists to freely invade (and that's what it REALLY is) we are going to lose this country and probably civilization. These people live to kill and live to die. This is the religion of anti-life or in Christian terms: Anti-Christ.
Get them out and keep them out and we will live in relative peace.