tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post8963692018113157423..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: The Fork in the Road from Political LimboUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-60530465974095184742008-02-02T10:49:00.000-05:002008-02-02T10:49:00.000-05:00MadMax: I am pro-free immigration, with the provis...MadMax: I am pro-free immigration, with the proviso that anyone who comes here take an oath to uphold the pro-individual rights, pro-freedom principles on which the country was founded. That isn't being demanded now. Nothing is being demanded of anyone who moves here, except to register his existence with the government (social security numbers, tax filing etc.). Most of the Mexicans who come here are here for the jobs, but othewise they are only a rung less clueless about the nature of the country's origins than the average progressively-educated American. Most of the Europeans (Brits, Dutch, Asians, etc.) who have managed to come here at least bring with them more skills and ability than being able to pick crops in California or Arizona. <BR/><BR/>Yes, I think the liberals (read socialists, progressives, Obamas, Clintons, Kennedys) down deep hate this country so much that they want to turn it into what you call a "third world" nation -- just another nation on the block, nothing special about it, so it ought to knuckle under and become an obsequious member of the "global village." America is a great country, and they hate greatness of any legitimate, rational kind. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, technically, I'm against "open immigration," because the kind the liberals mean is the kind that would make Mexicans dependent on the State for their legitimacy in terms of health and social services. This threat is overlooked by many Objectivists. I don't see an answer to the conundrum. It's a choice of evils in a disintegrating civilization. Ed ClineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-65992324471588185182008-02-01T21:49:00.000-05:002008-02-01T21:49:00.000-05:00Ed,I am curious what you think of the often made O...Ed,<BR/><BR/>I am curious what you think of the often made Objectivist arguments for open immigration? While I agree that in a free, non-multiculturalist state immigration would not be an issue. In our present state it is a big issue. Even going beyond the dangers of Islamic immigration, the United States is fast being turned into a 3rd world nation and I think this is what the liberals want (as long as its not in their neighborhood). I'm for open immigration as an ideal to move towards but I don't think it is an ideal in today's semi-socialist, philosophically corrupt context. But I don't know what intermediate steps are ideal. The present immigration debate leaves me baffled.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-32404469536684622292008-02-01T09:12:00.000-05:002008-02-01T09:12:00.000-05:00Hi, Cedar: I've listened to many Democrats imply ...Hi, Cedar: I've listened to many Democrats imply that they're all for the open immigration of Mexicans and of no one else (except maybe Haitians). Kennedy especially I get the strong sense that he just wants to screw the country by giving protection and "rights" to hordes of illiterate, non-English speaking sweathogs (and to keep them down on the farm, or in the fields). Do not take this remark as Mexiphobic; half the guys in my Air Force basic training flights were Mexicans, and I got along fine with them.<BR/><BR/>There is a big difference between the U.S. now and the rest of the world. The nation closest to us in culture and history and values is sinking fast into a stagnant Big Brotherish nation: Britain. And, if the Constitution had any real power to throttle statism, we wouldn't have to worry about not filing tax returns or obeying any of the other mandatory, statist laws. The U.S. of 1800 and 1900 and 2007 are worlds apart. <BR/><BR/>Ed ClineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-38861037390085588032008-01-31T21:54:00.000-05:002008-01-31T21:54:00.000-05:00That was a well-written and informative post, but ...That was a well-written and informative post, but I have to heckle you on a couple of points<BR/><BR/>Point A: You wrote: "...Now it is the Democrats who favor unregulated immigration while the Republicans wish to control it. "<BR/><BR/>I would be thrilled if you could name a single democrat who has actually declared himself in favor of unregulated immigration. A link would be great.<BR/><BR/>Point B: "...the Constitution has been so adulterated with statist amendments and skewed by non-objective interpretations that its chains have less power to bind men from mischief than Styrofoam. "<BR/><BR/>I've been meaning to bother you about this one for a while now. You have a historical education which leaves mine way behind and you've been in the military which means you've read a lot and must have at least a little firsthand experience of life outside the protection of our constitution. Are you trying to say there isn't a world of difference between the present day US and other places and times? If you do see such a difference, which I certainly do, I don't see how you can hold the view that the constitution does not continue to exercise a great deal of force against the kind of mischief that has run rampant throughout most of human history. <BR/><BR/>I think that if we ever actually reach the point where the constitution is less substantial than styrofoam, we'll see no more of the "problem" of illegal Mexican.Cedar Bristolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16265238073694388741noreply@blogger.com