Demonstrations, riots and deportations of law-abiding undocumented immigrants are the result of the federal government’s failure to enact individual rights respecting immigration legislation.
Something like your plan never even occurred to me, yet like all your commentaries is well thought out. It works within the practical confines of today's general philosophical corruption, and yet it STILL is a decent and moral solution to an intractable problem. Well Done!
Another problem is the amount of money flowing through NGOs via taxpayer dollars. It is a massive web of dark money honey and is keeping those of us who just want a fair system from living our lives as we would like to, free without constraint. If they can fund the protests with our taxpayer dollars, then what hope do we have of recovering from this immigration mess. We have nonpartisan city councilmembers promoting the "No Kings" day and the people who vote for them, never bother to do the research. It is a very broken system and even though I love your thoughts we are a long way from that ideal unless we have an informed and engaged citizenry.
Great idea! I especially like the part about banks loaning money to people coming for high paying professions. Maybe companies in the tech area would buy spots and then have potential employees apply for a job that includes a paid immigration spot.
I utterly reject your notion as stated here: "the hunting down, detention and deportation of law-abiding “illegal” immigrants is immoral—it violates the individual rights of both immigrants, their employers, and of taxpayers who are forced to fund a cause that should be outside the scope of government."
Illegal immigration is, shall we say, illegal. It is a crime. It is, to the contrary of what you claim, immoral to permit open borders. The United States must be very careful about who it lets in the country and, in particular, prevent criminals from other countries from entering.
Once we've rooted out the illegals, if their talents and character commend themselves, we may certainly consider their re-entry on the basis of our country's laws.
I have no problem with your other suggestions, but we must be morally clear that if a person enters this country without meeting the requirements established by Congress, then that person has no business being in this country and is, therefore, illegally located and needs to return to the country of which he is a citizen as soon as possible.
This piece neglects to mention that immigration reform actually took place in 1986 with the Immigration Reform Act President Reagan gave amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal aliens in the United States a good many who took the amnesty and became permanent residents. We're in this place because the provision of that act haven't been followed.
President Trump is actually implementing a real solution he's enforcing the law as written instead of letting the problem exacerbate. We shouldn't be at a place of 30 million illegal aliens in the US and it's time to enforce our immigration laws.
I concur with Russell! A marvelous piece of work consistent with our ideals.
However, your opening statement, "The great tragedy is that it shouldn’t have had to come to this," portends that both "it" and "this." speak to the far greater "tragedy" underway. The immigration issue may have risen to where it will be competing with the festering economic one for fostering potential "remedy."
I specifically chose not to insert the word "peaceful" in front of remedy. Once sufficient numbers of citizens believe that they should/must take to the streets, a much smaller number of them will be "incentivized" to ignore the word "peaceful." Most will be doing so in response to the obvious obscenity of "rounding up" those whose only crime was the initial violation of law.
There will be a few however, who will be "motivated" to assure that authorities ACT - whatever their motivation! Be it financial, philosophical, or both! Then, the issue will pale and be replaced by "how" authority ACTED!
.
You and I both understand, Anders, what invariably becomes the psychology of the mob - all mobs - the protesting ones, and the ones politically enfranchised to deal with them. Their ultimate behavior is entirely predictable.
In conclusion, there will be a significant number of Objectivists and Libertarians who will reject your idea(s) on "borders" - as well as Democrats and worse on the other side. However, that subject is an on-going debate and I look forward to it continuing.
Something like your plan never even occurred to me, yet like all your commentaries is well thought out. It works within the practical confines of today's general philosophical corruption, and yet it STILL is a decent and moral solution to an intractable problem. Well Done!
Another problem is the amount of money flowing through NGOs via taxpayer dollars. It is a massive web of dark money honey and is keeping those of us who just want a fair system from living our lives as we would like to, free without constraint. If they can fund the protests with our taxpayer dollars, then what hope do we have of recovering from this immigration mess. We have nonpartisan city councilmembers promoting the "No Kings" day and the people who vote for them, never bother to do the research. It is a very broken system and even though I love your thoughts we are a long way from that ideal unless we have an informed and engaged citizenry.
Great idea! I especially like the part about banks loaning money to people coming for high paying professions. Maybe companies in the tech area would buy spots and then have potential employees apply for a job that includes a paid immigration spot.
Absolutely!
I utterly reject your notion as stated here: "the hunting down, detention and deportation of law-abiding “illegal” immigrants is immoral—it violates the individual rights of both immigrants, their employers, and of taxpayers who are forced to fund a cause that should be outside the scope of government."
Illegal immigration is, shall we say, illegal. It is a crime. It is, to the contrary of what you claim, immoral to permit open borders. The United States must be very careful about who it lets in the country and, in particular, prevent criminals from other countries from entering.
Once we've rooted out the illegals, if their talents and character commend themselves, we may certainly consider their re-entry on the basis of our country's laws.
I have no problem with your other suggestions, but we must be morally clear that if a person enters this country without meeting the requirements established by Congress, then that person has no business being in this country and is, therefore, illegally located and needs to return to the country of which he is a citizen as soon as possible.
This piece neglects to mention that immigration reform actually took place in 1986 with the Immigration Reform Act President Reagan gave amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal aliens in the United States a good many who took the amnesty and became permanent residents. We're in this place because the provision of that act haven't been followed.
President Trump is actually implementing a real solution he's enforcing the law as written instead of letting the problem exacerbate. We shouldn't be at a place of 30 million illegal aliens in the US and it's time to enforce our immigration laws.
I concur with Russell! A marvelous piece of work consistent with our ideals.
However, your opening statement, "The great tragedy is that it shouldn’t have had to come to this," portends that both "it" and "this." speak to the far greater "tragedy" underway. The immigration issue may have risen to where it will be competing with the festering economic one for fostering potential "remedy."
I specifically chose not to insert the word "peaceful" in front of remedy. Once sufficient numbers of citizens believe that they should/must take to the streets, a much smaller number of them will be "incentivized" to ignore the word "peaceful." Most will be doing so in response to the obvious obscenity of "rounding up" those whose only crime was the initial violation of law.
There will be a few however, who will be "motivated" to assure that authorities ACT - whatever their motivation! Be it financial, philosophical, or both! Then, the issue will pale and be replaced by "how" authority ACTED!
.
You and I both understand, Anders, what invariably becomes the psychology of the mob - all mobs - the protesting ones, and the ones politically enfranchised to deal with them. Their ultimate behavior is entirely predictable.
In conclusion, there will be a significant number of Objectivists and Libertarians who will reject your idea(s) on "borders" - as well as Democrats and worse on the other side. However, that subject is an on-going debate and I look forward to it continuing.
Superb piece! Thank you for elucidating it!
Dave