Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)
spot.colorado.edu
spot.colorado.edu
Americans act as is 20 years even is ancient history.
Even after 100 or 150 years, a huge damage can still resonate to a country.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs might alleviate a bit but an outside solution is needed to properly coordinate/manage resources.
This view is simply ignorant of history.
The US doesn't need to colonize countries to "manage resources" for them in a benevolent way. The first thing it needs to do is stop actively sabotaging them and their economies. Interestingly, "benevolent" management of resources that "primitives" mishandle has been a justification for nearly all colonization programs in the past few centuries, except perhaps what the Belgians did in the Congo.
Economic sanctions against countries in Latin America, purely for ideological and political reasons, as well as massive American agriculture subsidies, have devastating effects on their economies.
This is, of course, when they aren't straight up invaded or sabotaged by America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
Just because the US went halfway in meddling before doesn't mean that a proper setup (replacing local government with a governor) would not work. If the goal was to create a decently running society versus extracting resources there should be no problem.
At some point, you gotta admit that hey, these countries are messed up. Whatever the reason, the current situation isn't working. Just like if you stabbed someone and really injured them. The correct response isn't to say "wow I should just stop interfering with you completely" but to realise they're bleeding out and, even if they protest, get them medical care until they're healthy again.
Or, you know, pretend that their independence matters, that every country can just do fine if only they're left alone, and ignore the terrible conditions most of their population lives in.
> Interestingly, "benevolent" management of resources that "primitives" mishandle has been a justification for nearly all colonization programs in the past few centuries, except perhaps what the Belgians did in the Congo.
Even US foreign aid is distributed in a way completely subservient to US geopolitical interests. The perhaps most chilling example(and there are many examples) of this would be when the US denied food aid to Bangaldesh in '74, when the country was undergoing a massive famine(which ultimately led to the deaths of 4 million people). This wasn't just a simple denial, but an act of ransom against an impoverished, suffering people who just won their independence from a genocide-committing, US-backed Pakistan. The Americans had initially promised food aid to Bangladesh, and this aid was ready to deliver, when the Bangladeshis were told that they had to immediately cease all trade relations with Cuba to see any of it. Not only was Cuba one of the few trading partners of Bangladesh at the time, but also one of the first few countries to recognize their independence and status as a nation. By the time Bangladeshi leaders agreed to this demand, the famine was largely over and had claimed the bulk of its victims. US aid finally arrived too late to be of any use.
All of this was at the same time as when America was giving massive quantities of grain as food "aid" to South Vietnam, which was on its own a surplus food producing country. The grain given to South Vietnam was used(indeed, meant to be used) as barter in exchange for weapons from other countries. Just another instance of when American "charity" is used for American geopolitical interests rather than any meaningful form of charity.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that a nation state, especially one with the track record of the US, can be trusted to "benevolently" interfere with other countries. The only thing it will do, indeed can do, given the power structures that comprise it, is act in its own best interests, which are often as not to the detriment of the host country.
I take it you are opposed to the Monroe Doctrine. Do you think Spain, France, England, and the Netherlands would have just left Central America to their own devices? I am not making a lesser of two evils argument. Indeed, ascribing morality to the interactions of nation-states is silly IMO, but weak states are always going to be manipulated by stronger states.
Even then, USSR-India cooperation was mostly limited to military matters, like when the Soviets sent a carrier during the '71 war of independence for Bangladesh to keep the Americans from joining in.
India(under Nehru) and Egypt(under Nasser) actually founded the Non-Aligned Movement to avoid being pawns in the games of the US and USSR. This move confused and antagonized the Americans(if you are not our friend, you must be our enemy), which was why they had much closer ties with the Soviets. Nehru even rejected a permanent seat in the UNSC because of the NAM. You can hardly find two countries that did their best not to depend on foreign influence and benefactors. Of course in Egypt, after Nasser's downfall and the destruction of any hope for sovereign, secular Arab nationalism, the US gladly stepped in and took control of the pieces. The consequences of that are for all to see.
One word; remittances. They already make up far more money than foreign aid, and the best part is that it's far harder for corrupt governments to get their hands on it. Don't underestimate the passion those few people who enter the country has for their families back home.
So the answer is to let X% of the population in so 5X% can receive foreign money but still be subjected to a broken environment?
I'm not saying that remittances from some lucky people who have the means to move are the solution to world poverty, but they help. If you don't want to do anything that helps, but won't solve the problem in three seconds flat without any side effects, then I'm all ears of what your suggestion is?
And how much is Russia taking in for their past internationalist activities?
I think the answer in the current world political context should be obvious if we consider Singapore. What would happen if they just opened the doors and let anyone who wanted to go in, go in (IN, ID, PH, MY, BD, as well as Pan-EU)?
Better? Cuba, considering the embargo that fucked them twice over, is better off compared to most of the hell-holes intervention created in Latin America.
Even as a dictatorship it's much more benign compared to people like Pinochet that was supported, put in place, and much beloved by the US.
Also, do we ask something from the UK for embargoing us for a couple hundred years?
How many times have you been there?
You can live for years in a place and have the wrong impression about it. In fact, you can even be born in a place and leave there all your life and have and have the wrong impression about it. And you can also have historical reasons to disagree that don't apply to the general population (e.g. one's relatives being big-shots under the previous regime).
It's also easy to visit a place and just see what you wanted to see. Tourists traveling in utter misery do it all the time -- they have a great time, and people a few km from their hotel might be dying in slums.
I'm not saying that you did those things and I didn't. Just that measuring how many times more one has been there is not really relevant.
I went both times as part of a humanitarian mission to bring medical supplies. Cuba sucks. Great people. Horrible government.
Not an American, not interested in Michael Moore -- there are actual historians and accounts not just pop culture, and I've visited several times (and a large number of other parts of the world too).
But the use of "progressive news" as some kind of bad source paints a picture.
Edited because I was distracted by children.
i flatly do not care for americans more than i care for people with other passports, and i am not willing to support any special privileges built on this notion of us being one tribe.
"... A prima facie rights violation is an action of a sort that normally—that is, barring any special circumstances—violates someone’s rights. For example, killing a human being is a prima facie rights violation: in normal circumstances, to kill someone is to violate his rights. ...."
Fallacy one, is that killing a person is an binary, killed or not. It is not equivalent to a country establishing suverenity over its territory, borders, and laws. And denying a right to immigrate into a particular list of first world countries, is not equivalent to killing.
Fallacy two, is that the author oversimplifies.
First it is postulated, that immigration is a right. However, it is not the case. Every right granted within a sovereign country does not necessarily extend beyond its borders. Eg 2nd amendment right in US does not extend to Russia. Same can be said about abortions right grants -- these are not applicable at 'global level'. So lack of examining significantly complex analogies, is a simplification fallacy.
Second example of oversimplification fallacy, is that there are many more variables (rights, privileges, letter of law, reasons to enforce laws, etc) than just "US government" vs "an immigrant".
Otherwise, what's a right is what people define as one.
Here's a related question: is the will of a collection of people A (e.g. "no immigration to our parts") more or less important than the will of other people to immigrate there?
And two PS notes, as most people will focus on the wrong aspects of the question.
P.S 1: To bypass any kind of hypocrisy charges etc, e.g. "how you A people think you ended where you are now?", we can make A's proclamation as "no further immigration to our parts" -- this is selfish maybe, but not hypocritical.
P.S 2: Since few/no groups A have a uniform will, we can define A's will as the usual majority/plurality will, especially as expressed through their typical form of elections.
On a meta-level, e.g. are they justified to exist at all, and if so why, etc.
Let's say my neighbor has a nicer house than me, with an inground pool, cenral air, and a bowling alley in the basement. As much as I'd like to live there, and no matter the condition of my own house, I can't just move in because I feel like it.
There's plenty of reasons the population of NYC isn't 300M. The reality is that people are tied to their communities for many different reasons. Language, culture, family, friends, jobs. These aren't unique to the first world. Sure many would come, but many more would stay, and these things reach equilibrium.
One thing is certain, there'd be a much bigger labor pool and a more dynamic economy, IMO.
It's been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history that nations do not exist by right, they exist by might.
Nations have ALL the rights. The same way you have the right to with your body whatever you want. At least in principle.
Even when the supreme court decides that its nation can not do something, thats an entity that is part of the natio making a decision for the nation. Its not that the nation has lost rights, its just decided that it installs a supreme court that serves as a decision-maker for the nation.
This is an interesting claim to make.
For most of recorded history, borders were usually uncontrolled except in time of war/threat, and barriers to migration were at least as likely to be imposed at origin as at destination -- people capable of doing labor were an asset, and if they could get away from their current ruler/owner, another ruler would often be happy to take them. European monarchs, for example, would happily poach each others' dissatisfied subjects and even offer them land and religious toleration.
And in those times, the rights being exercised over movement were rights of rulers, not rights of nations. The idea of a "nation" as a thing capable of having rights didn't really exist until the 17th century, and was nebulous for some time after.
The paper makes absolutely no sense as it is.
First of all, there are no "prima facie" rights. Even the declaration of human rights is about declaring and enforcing man made rights, not prima facie rights that everyone automatically has in nature. Animals in nature have no rights (not in the sense that we can do anything to them: in the sense that there are no rights between them: one animal can do anything it likes to another, if it has the power to do so).
But, even accepting the notion, the conclusions are not coherent with the whole idea.
Immigration presupposes nations (the places where you immigrate to).
First, because else it's just movement (e.g. from California to Texas), not immigration.
And second, because what prospective immigrants want is to exchange one nations prospects (stability, economy, government, laws, jobs, culture, opportunities) for another's. If there were two different countries with the exact same prospects in all those areas, immigration between them would not make any sense (except in changing landscape, e.g. from snow to sunshine -- but that's seldom the reason people leave their country, friends and families for).
But "free boundless immigration as a fundamental right" means no nations, just a huge global state. What would there be to constitute a nation (with separate laws, government, economy, etc) if anybody can come in and leave at anytime for greener pastures?
The question i find interesting is, "how long will people like me get away with believing that rights come from rifles?"
nationality is segregation.
Voting with your feet was not significant before passports as the masses were too poor to move (which is why nobody had passport systems to begin with).
For example, if you see your country as your home, then ask yourself: is there a right to immigrate into your home?
If, on the other hand, you see the planet we live on as something that people have a natural right to roam at will, then the borders between countries would seem illegitimate, and one should be free to settle in any country, given the means, ability to provide for themselves, and the will to abide by the local laws and customs.
This is completely backwards. He should be in the position to prove that restrictions do violate rights, not that none of the ones he addresses don't violate rights.
With the goalposts shifted so far, I see this as pseudo-intellectual bloviation.
Active invasion, murder, genocide and sabotage are ethical concerns that immediately out-shadow ethical considerations of immigration. It's a bit like complaining about animal rights in DPRK.
I don't think "choice" is how you decide these arguments. Either your choice to make noise limits my choice to sleep or vice versa. There is not always a way to limit the choice of none.
In regards to the condition of conflicting interests, all you really have is mutual agreement among all involved parties. In this case, you agree to make less noise late at night in exchange for my agreement not to turn the neighborhood against you by telling everyone what a dick you are. Unfortunately given the dissolution of community reputation isn't the effective check it once was, and as a result we end up being both alienated and mired in bureaucracy.
"A democracy is only legitimate to the extent that people choose to participate in it" is correct, but only applies to the people within the bounds of the democratic state -- those upon which the effects of the democratic decisions will be applied to. Not to arbitrarily anyone.
So refusing the vote to blacks or women etc, within a state is undemocratic, refusing the entry to the state (and thus the vote) to those outside is another thing altogether.
Let's conduct a thought experiment. Given totally free entry and vote to the USA, what's to stop, say, 400 million devout muslims from migrating there, and voting at the very first elections they can vote in, for islamic law (or gradually introducing it)? That's, after all, the will of the (new) 400+350 million strong people.
You could substitute muslims for any other group. Or you could do the reverse experiment, migrating 100 millions americans to a muslim country of, say, 50-70 million people, and having the vote to change the laws and customs to americanized preferences of living.
It's only because a lot of people in the US think that how the US lives and operates is some kind of universal law or ultimate preference of mankind (forgetting that there are two fractions even in the us itself) that they cannot see the possibility of such experiments/distortions.
Meanwhile, people in places like Lebanon, that had these things painfully happen to them, are much more aware of the diversity of what people will.
Given a choice, the majority of the world would choose to move to Europe or North America. I'd bet if you polled, say, Guatemala, and offered everyone free residency and resettlement in the US, you'd have acceptance numbers over 80% at least. And a lot of the people choosing to stay would be those that are well off.
So what's the actual plan to deal with resettling a couple billion people (with significantly different values and standards)? And if we can magically provide a safe and wonderful country for them in tier 1 countries, why can't we do the same in their country of origin?
Or more directly, what's allowing tier 1 countries the ability to absorb so many people?
It is worth noting that the trend in migration from Mexico to the USA has actually reversed lately.
It is worth noting that the trend in migration from Mexico to the USA has actually reversed lately.
The only study that even claimed that misinterpreted the two studies that produced the raw numbers.
The inbound figures counted only working-age adults. It ignored all children and infants, including the huge number of unaccompanied infants.
The outbound figures counted everybody, including children and infants.
There was a net increase overall.
My experience with immigrants is that they generally want to be able to maintain some semblance of their culture in their new homes, but they generally aren't interested in foisting that culture on others.
As is the "boundless immigration open for all" scenario to begin with. But given that, what could happen? That's one possible answer.
>For starters, what is the motivation for these Muslims to migrate to America or western Europe if their goal is to create an Islamic state?*
Expanding islam to other places is part of the historical identity of islamism. Might not be on the goals of peaceful laymen, but it's very much a core tenet of more devout believers (not talking about militants either).
But an even more obvious answer, at the layman level, would be they'd migrate to take advantage of the wealth, infrastructure, opportunities etc. The making an islamic state can always come second. After you have those, why not change the laws and customs to your preference too? Especially if you are a large enough subset of the population?
>If your argument is that they want access to our economic prosperity, the act of converting our government would destroy the very system that created it.
That's how you see it. They don't necessarily see it that way, and I don't believe that it is that way in reality either. You can create prosperity under very many systems. I don't believe the US has some unique model for how a wealthy state must be run. We have from far more socialist economies that do quite well (e.g. nordic countries), to light totalitarian states that do great (Singapore), to "communist" single party states that are rising fast (China).
>If your argument is that they are dicks that only care about creating a tyranny of the majority to "punish" others
You call it "punishing" others and "being dicks".
As they see it, it's just putting others on the right track and being moral and just (according to their beliefs). Puritanical western societies have not done less (e.g. with the Inquisition and similar establishments).
>My experience with immigrants is that they generally want to be able to maintain some semblance of their culture in their new homes, but they generally aren't interested in foisting that culture on others.
That's because their small numbers make them humble and appreciative of where they have been received. When there was mass immigration (e.g. when the English and such religious nuts migrated to the US) they very much forced their religion and customs on others (native americans for one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_boarding_schoo... ), but also WASPs as the dominant majority group over Jews, Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc.
I believe you can also go to Svalbard if you do so without passing through another nation on the way which would restrict your passage.
Conversely, is there a right for me to invite people to move into my house? Is it even "my" house in the first place?
The main problem is that immigration creates definite winners and losers. Even if you believe in the "right" of someone to move to a place that has more economic opportunity, what happens to the social dynamic and economy in the place they immigrate, and more importantly, from where they emigrate? Once upon a time people talked about "brain drain", but it seems we've either forgotten about it, or just don't care anymore, content to impose a second round of colonisation on the developing world.
The fact is, excessive immigration steals the brightest minds from developing countries and prevents their further development. It's great for the west (notwithstanding social effects); we get a never-ending source of labour that's willing to work for less than the indigenous population in the same field (salary arbitrage), while being able to draw from a pool of skilled workers far larger than our actual population.
So then this leads to the problem: it's great for the west, so our governments push migration. It prevents development of developing nations, keeping their living standards low. So what's the end game? I personally want to believe in a Utopian future where Accra could be every bit as developed as say, New York or Paris. Where migration isn't an economic issue. However if we continue as we have, migration will only cause more nations to become like Somalia, Libya, Syria; we steal all their human capital and, impoverished with no capacity to develop, they radicalise, we kill them with drones, and we're essentially living in a completely stratified world.
Anyhow, this worst case scenario probably won't happen because realistically, no single country can take in all the economic migrants of the world, but we do need to realise that when it comes to immigration, there are definite losers. Immigration is basically colonialism round 2. But it continues because, to the immigrants, it's an optimal personal decision to immigrate. For the host nation, they're accumulating human capital. The nation they're leaving loses.
And I'll finish with a quote from Thabo Mbeki, past president of South Africa, which I shamelessly ripped from a relevant Wikipedia page:
"In our world in which the generation of new knowledge and its application to change the human condition is the engine which moves human society further away from barbarism, do we not have need to recall Africa's hundreds of thousands of intellectuals back from their places of emigration in Western Europe and North America, to rejoin those who remain still within our shores!
I dream of the day when these, the African mathematicians and computer specialists in Washington and New York, the African physicists, engineers, doctors, business managers and economists, will return from London and Manchester and Paris and Brussels to add to the African pool of brain power, to enquire into and find solutions to Africa's problems and challenges, to open the African door to the world of knowledge, to elevate Africa's place within the universe of research the information of new knowledge, education and information."
And a page that touches on the issue of human capital flight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight
Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away from reality. Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-musl...
I like libertarians, but there are some feedback loops that prevent me from universally embracing libertarianism.
Also, the author describes this right to immigrate from the context of "normal" immigrants. What is normal and who gets to define it? Seems like a fluid definition that evolves as a function of past immigration. For example, parts of Sharia law might fit in OK (usury, for example) with Western values, so maybe we let that slide for a bit. Then, after a few decades and more norming of other aspects, all these other social values become part of a voting block and get pushed into action. I don't see great examples of government in the middle East, so why would I want to normalize those social values and evolve my government to suit?
I don't consider myself anti-Islam (just anti fundamentalists, including Judeo-Christian sects) and I know a ton of secular Muslims with my values (most don't want open door immigration either!).
In thirty years of traveling to Europe to visit family, I just don't look at how they've managed immigration with a lot of enthusiasm. Nor do I want to replicate those policies here.
Basically, what you're arguing is that a person's right to pursuit of happiness is lower than a society's right to flourish. And, also, that the society has the right to choose what types of people are undesirable (by criteria that goes beyond "do you follow the law", because merit and culture includes so much more).
Based on this:
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings...
The majority of immigrants are likely non-Muslims. Only two Muslim countries appear in the top 10. Of the top 44% of immigrants, 8% are from two Muslim countries.
Likely a larger percentage of local non-Muslim Americans want to ban homosexuality than do immigrants to the UK. I wouldn't be surprised if in the US, immigrants are more open to homosexuality than US citizens.
This is perfectly rational. Do you trust political polling from pollsters with party affiliation? I hope not.
Over the last couple years, I've started mentally putting a "P(BULLSHIT)" next to every source I read. The estimate keeps growing.
While you might want to make this an ad hominem attack, all I can say is that my probability estimates are pretty darn bipartisan.
Isn't usually the most "esteemed" establishments that are closer to the party line?
That's par for the course of being "esteemed".
What figures do you believe are accurate?
I don't know them, but I'll take your word for it. However, will point out that it is in no way worse than the source you provided (no source)
How about Migration Watch?
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-population-count...
Compared to the total non-UK born population, Pakistan + Bangladesh are a tiny blip.
Another source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politi...
More from the ONS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the...
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_570badf0e4b0fa55639d65a9
But also consider this:
a) Immigrants tend to adopt the mainstream culture over time b) By stopping people from immigrating, you're just keeping homophobia away from you, you're not preventing it existing. A gay child Of Muslim parents is better off in the UK than Pakistan even if his parents are going to continue to be homophobic. I'm not a fan OF NIMBYism.
Edit: wrt your 'A', there is a massive amount of things not said about how immigrants take on the values of their new country. Cato has published a few papers on that and it is always in the context of large aggregate stats dominated by immigrants from similar cultures (some might disagree, but Mexico is VERY similar to the US; Syria not so much)
And economics has no concern about the well-being of any social group.
If another social group creates more wealth than yours do via immigration, guess what? Your social group dies.
If a bunch of marauding dark-skinned anti-gay Muslims practicing Sharia law creates more wealth than sweet, huggable white libertarians with flowers in their hands, guess who's going to dominate?
There's no faking it in economics. Adapt or die.
And white nationalists are going to learn the hard way that immigrants are what creates wealth in this country, since they work hard and have a lower crime rate than natives.
The left, however, is a real thing. When I worked with Obama's people, I worked with people that identified as "anarcho-socialists" that openly discussed entitlement expansion as a means to break the system. I could not invent the crap I heard these people say.
We have to make sure that white-nationalism is purged from this country, and an open-borders society is probably the best way to fight-off white-nationalism.
We need to make sure a Sharia-law supporting Muslim is able to freely immigrate into this country and sit freely and peacefully alongside a Brazilian transgendered activist on our subways.
That is the multiculturalism that we Americans want.
I get that you have an opinion and it is fairly orthogonal to mine. Your opinion doesn't offend me or make me feel threatened, but the presumption that you speak for anyone beyond yourself is awkward.
I want to understand your side, but your presentation is pitting you against good taste... I feel like I'm talking to that guy at the gym who went off his bipolar meds.
Tone down the preaching of universal truth, perhaps?
At the time, yes. But if TFA author's idea ("boundless immigration for everybody") was allowed, that could very well include all areas of UK, no?
>that poll isn't an accurate reflection Of British Muslim views or any of the British Muslims I work with.
Perhaps because as an white programmer (I suppose, not sure about the former, but being on HN puts you statistically closer to the latter, and to higher incomes in any case) you tend to only work with progressively minded muslim people, from more affluent backgrounds? Which would be an even less representative sample than the one in the poll?
>Immigrants tend to adopt the mainstream culture over time
Only when there's assimilation, and when their numbers are small. E.g. in the US, any particular immigrant group was still a relevant minority compared to the rest (though even today WASP ideas and power are prevalent in US culture).
If the mainstream culture is not what it used to be (UK is no longer an empire of any sort, and it's not even "Swinging London" anymore), and the numbers of immigration population and the ease of communication with their originating country/culture, the internet, global TV programming etc make it much easier to stick to their original culture. Younger generation that look to upward mobility tend to adopt mainstream culture more easily, but that's not something many people, even from the "native" population, realistically aspire to anymore.
>A gay child Of Muslim parents is better off in the UK than Pakistan even if his parents are going to continue to be homophobic. I'm not a fan OF NIMBYism.
Only if the number of homophobic immigrants are not greater than the number of gay immigrants. Which, depending on the country of origin, might be a hard thing...
And I'm not advocating opening borders immediately - just move in that direction and relax controls a bit.
Well, the EU never really opened its borders.
>Sure, there's immigration, but it's not like we all speak Polish.
That's because Poland has seen significant increase in local opportunities and no instability recently.
Not the same as most parts of the world people want to immigrate to the EU from...
It does assume integration though. If you take in immigrants, but isolate them and/or treat them badly, might it not be that you actually radicalize them further?
(Of course we shouldn't isolate them, but if that effectively ends up happening it has to be considered.)
We have that in the US already, with the evangelists trying to do the exact same thing - strict religious laws and anti-homosexuality. Lots of gays/transgendered people being killed in the US, as well as domestic violence causing death among people that stray away from their family. And what good are laws against murder if the government doesn't enforce it, like the current US Attorney General is doing?
But, it doesn't matter since immigration isn't designed to influence culture. The US government isn't a Cultural Government. We don't even have a national language. Pretty cool, huh?
Immigrations instead is used to maintain economic welfare, as immigrants work harder than natives and have a lower crime rate. Otherwise, you have a stagnant economy like Japan.
You have plenty of other options to control culture besides immigration. Learn how to make a TV show, or speak in public.
So, the correct answer to everything is to make sure we have an open border. Let's work to make sure that happens.
I find it interesting that many purportedly non-americans seem to think that Westboro Baptist Church has widespread support, gays and undesirables are hunted down if they stray from the Safe Zone, and children recite the pledge every ten minutes while we burn a book written by a jew.
Good to hear that Germany is finally considering legalizing gay marriage, BTW.
My friends on the left always push for universal, top down rulings on social issues. In reality, there are really good reasons historically for why groups move and congregate within the United States - they get better treatment and opportunity in different places. States rights is a safety net against political swings like we're dealing with and we should all support it not because we like what Alabama or Indiana wants, but because we want California or New York to be able to represent and manage itself.
Should the states have had the right to keep laws against miscegenation because someone objected to interracial marriage? What about states right when it came to Jim Crow laws?
All conjecture. If only social science was a real science and we could do independent trials.
No. What would the motivation be? What would be the precedent[s] cited?
Do i think the Federal Government would not mount an active defense of gay marriage if a given state sought to outlaw it?
Maybe. It would depend on the state and precedent[s] used to justify the endeavor.
May i pose a non sequitur query? What was the Women's March on the day after the Trumpnoguration protesting? What legislation, executive actions, or campaign promises were they seeking to highlight and defeat?
Libertarians recognize property rights and that property owners should be able to prevent people from "immigrating" to their property.
In practice that could materialize in a number of different laws and costumes, depending on the culture and society.
How that should work in the context of State regulation is a problem for which libertarianism has no solution.
The part that doesn't want to give up their perpetual source of almost free income is the State, not landowners.
[citation needed]
You are a landowner only in as much as the state guarantees your right to the land, or (the only other alternative) as much as you can protect and enforce your rights to your land.
So, without a state, some big bullies with access to better guns will have you for breakfast.
Besides, who gave you this "right" to the land in the first place? Only a series of contracts, and before it all, stealing it from the Native Americans, who got there first (in as much as we can recognize "getting there first" as a legitimate right to a piece of land).
Second, even if it "is up to the rightful landowners to allow whoever they want on their premises", that doesn't extend to outside their premises.
So, either those immigrants you accepted in would have to live only on your premises, or you have to negotiate with the other landowners to have the immigrants be able to walk around their land, define some common areas which no one has exclusive rights to, etc. And this collective agreement, which you'll also need some way to enforce it, is exactly a primitive form of govermnet as well.
You think you are so clever to come up with this argument that you imagine will end the discussion, isn't it?
In the following passages you recognize that it is difficult to know who is the "right" owner of something, but before you were saying that the State de facto owns everything. So what is it?
No, I just think the argument I responded to was obviously half-thought, to put it mildly.
Mine is not particularly clever, not very original. It's just a statement of fact.
>In the following passages you recognize that it is difficult to know who is the "right" owner of something, but before you were saying that the State de facto owns everything. So what is it?
I fail to see the contradiction. Confused much?
The fact that, as I acknowledged, it's difficult to know who is the "right" owner of something, e.g. some land, it's totally orthogonal to my other point.
I didn't say the State enforces the "right" ownership. Just that it enforces the existing ownership rights -- whether they are "right" (ultimately justified) or not. It's a fact that the State has the power to, and does, enforce the property rights currently in existence in the US. That's a statement of fact.
Second, I never said that "the State de facto owns everything" (although they could). Just that they de facto enforce all property rights. Anyone claiming to own a piece of land in the US, must pass through the state procedures to prove so -- else it is not considered theirs, and is taken away from them.
Downvote my post all you want, but Malthus didn't have a downwards facing arrow next to his.