|
| Thread: Immigration policies and their effect on foreign and domestic nationals |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted January 28, 2014 02:14 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 02:17, 28 Jan 2014.
|
There will be immigration policies and restrictions because countries are not equal in infrastructure and all of their budgets are based on a certain population estimate which should stay stable. Comparing it to migration is flawed logic, even if it wasnt, I live in a city that has taken enormous migration over the last 50 years and the results are not so refreshing: Ugly urbanization, traffic that drives people berserk and cultural polarization.
Besides, when it comes to migration, in theory you may be free to roam wherever you want but in practice it's your social class that determines where you live. There will be neighborhoods you simply cant afford.
And mvass:
The laws of a state are, in theory and in practice, above the property rights of an individual, that is, if driving before 15 is illegal, you cant say, it's my yard so I can drive in here. Just like that you cant invite anyone in if it is against the regulations because your house is in the country and the kind of freedom you talk about (not abstract or philosophical aspect of the concept but the one based on rights that are constutitionalized) is something the state regulates to begin with anyway. You wont have property rights in the natural order of things, property is a human invention that works under certain regulations which are governed by the state.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 03:06 AM |
|
|
Artu, there's a distinction between is and ought. If I allow a 15-year-old to drive in my yard (or, for a better example, on my private road), the government may send cops to stop me. In doing so, it would be violating my rights, because my property is my own, and no one is being harmed by the 15-year-old driving on my private property as long as I allow it*. It's true that property rights are a human invention and don't exist in nature, but there's quite a leap between that and saying that whatever the state decides property rights to be is whatever they are. Medical research, too, is a human invention, but that doesn't mean that the state can alter biochemistry by decree. So it is for property rights - there are correct human-established property rights, and the law of the state can (and often does) ignore them. The state can defend freedom, or it can violate it. Often, it does the latter.
*This isn't a particularly good example, because the 15-year-old, being a minor, can't consent to anything. A better example would be a drunk driver - someone who (while sober) agrees to drive drunk on my (and only my) property.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 03:09 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
If I can't do whatever I want with it (as long as I don't violate other people's property rights), it's not my property. If the government can tell me what I can do with it, the property belongs to it, not to me. Here's what it has to do with property rights. Suppose a homeowner sells a house to a foreigner. The foreigner needs the government's permission to live there, which is a violation of property rights. Suppose I'm an employer and want to hire a foreigner. I need the government's permission to do so. Does it own my business, that it has this authority?
There are no mainstream positions that say that any Mexican should be free to move to the US, even after passing a criminal background check.
This can lead into semantics but property rights are generally not perceived to be absolutely sovereign to any single party. It's not absolutely yours or absolutely the public's (or the governments), it's a dynamic combination of all of the above. 'Private property' is just a type of zoning category that says that X plot of lands is considered part of your assets, and therefore you can freely erect a house there, store stuff there, etc. There are currently no governments on Earth that recognize that to mean that an individual can do whatever they want on it, including having whoever you want live on it. If you have a cadre of unregistered foreigners indefinitely living on your property and being given a salary without any taxes, you are violating state law and there can be a warrant for your arrest.
So while a government might not own your business or even have anything whatsoever to do with its administration, it can heavily affect various elements of running your business because of laws that it legislates and has the power to enforce.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 03:20 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 03:22, 28 Jan 2014.
|
@mvass
My point was, you have some version of property rights on your mind that surpasses any other law and regulation, you talk of this as if it is the self-evident correct version of how things should work, while in fact it is an invitation to disaster. As usual, you have some one-dimensional principle on your mind and the rest does not matter to you. Yes, states can be more or less authoritarian but taking this to the degree of "my property means 100 percent my rules" isn't necessarily correct. You are not even trying to convince people to your point of view because you seem to think your point is so obviously self-evident, it is not. Actually, as I've just stated, it is very one-dimensional: Property rights you say, under any circumstance, makes you the ruler as long as you don't hurt others. (What will drunk driving cause, btw?) However, your civil rights and your property rights are under separate jurisdiction under law, Omega is a lawyer, maybe he'll manage to explain it in a more technical way, in English.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 04:25 AM |
|
|
The fiction of "private property" as recognized by states today is just that - a fiction. Any state can unilaterally change the rules and force you to comply, and will claim legitimacy in doing so. If its claim really were legitimate, then it would be the real owner of all the property in its territory, and only letting others use it, like a feudal lord. If the government can legitimately prevent you from hiring foreigners, it can just as legitimately prevent you from hiring blacks, or force you to do all your dealings in Swahili. Fortunately, the state's claim isn't legitimate.Quote:
What will drunk driving cause, btw?
People who consent to driving on my private road consent to the risks and accept the rules I've made.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 04:48 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
The fiction of "private property" as recognized by states today is just that - a fiction. Any state can unilaterally change the rules and force you to comply, and will claim legitimacy in doing so. If its claim really were legitimate, then it would be the real owner of all the property in its territory, and only letting others use it, like a feudal lord. If the government can legitimately prevent you from hiring foreigners, it can just as legitimately prevent you from hiring blacks, or force you to do all your dealings in Swahili. Fortunately, the state's claim isn't legitimate.
It is possible for a state to unilaterally change the rules and force you to comply to everything and anything, but it is not always successful. Usually, it does not succeed.
It is insurmountably unlikely for a state to adopt a law that forces you to do all of your business dealings in Swahili because almost everybody would agree that it would offer no benefit to the common welfare and happiness of the society; it would just be obnoxious and severely complicate and slow down everyday business. It is, however, immensely likely for a state to adopt laws that allow civil authorities to make arrests when citizens use their property to keep around people that are paid a salary and don't have to pay taxes to the state, because almost everybody agrees that that is harmful. In fact, tax evasion is illegal in every country in the world. This is also why neighborhood associations can have the authority to force people to maintain certain standards on their property. If they do not comply, they can face legal consequences.
Only rules that are beneficial to the welfare & stability of people should exist. If a rule is deemed not to succeed at this, then the rules can be continually scrapped, added, revised, and adapted in an ongoing evolutionary process. Very few people in the world are convinced that absolutism on private property is beneficial to the welfare & stability of the world, hence why the personal definition you are using is not recognized. If you want a legal definition of 'private property' as it understood in U.S. Law, you can look it up.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 04:53 AM |
|
|
The question isn't what's likely, the question is what's legitimate. If there US were to adopt actual private property, it's unlikely that many businesses would choose to operate in Swahili, but if somebody would want to, it would be perfectly legitimate for them to do so.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 05:02 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 05:04, 28 Jan 2014.
|
Quote:
If the government can legitimately prevent you from hiring foreigners, it can just as legitimately prevent you from hiring blacks, or force you to do all your dealings in Swahili.
Well, they are not equivalent restrictions, one is based on citizenship and the other is based on race. Sure, the Swahili thing is pure fantasy, but throughout history, states did interfere with these things, if I remember right, in France you still can't have more than some amount of foreign language store signs, almost everywhere racial restrictions in work places were very common up until very recently, etc etc... You should come up with real life examples with actual contexts rather than forced Swahili, because in fantasyland, I can apply the same rules to your "private property." I can easily say, if a state can take a piece of earth and tell me it is his land and I can not enter, the state can also force me to speak Swahili... See how that blade cuts both ways.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 05:02 AM |
|
|
US businesses don't generally operate in Swahili. Most of them operate in English or Spanish, because that is what is practical to their environment in everyday business. Some of the larger ones may operate in many languages.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 05:08 AM |
|
|
The point is, if the state owns your property, as it claims to by its actions (though not its words), it can make you do absurd and fantasy things just because it wants to, and it would be legitimate for it to do so. If this kind of feudalism is correct, then Jim Crow and other similar restrictions were completely legitimate.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 05:10 AM |
|
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 05:15 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
The point is, if the state owns your property, as it claims to by its actions (though not its words), it can make you do absurd and fantasy things just because it wants to, and it would be legitimate for it to do so. If this kind of feudalism is correct, then Jim Crow and other similar restrictions were completely legitimate.
That isn't the point at all. A state can make you do hypothetically everything and anything, including a law that mandates its citizens to spray extra strength nail polish remover on their genitals every time they walk through the gate of a green-painted wooden picket fence on either Wednesday evenings or Saturday afternoons, however no such law exists. Although with the proper revisions, court rulings and/or constitutional amendments, a state could eventually mandate such a law, and since it has control of the military, civil authorities, and intelligence agencies, it could then enforce it. That is what makes a state able to do anything: it has the ability to enforce it. The reason no such law exists is because nobody considers it helpful to the welfare & stability of the world.
There were Jim Crow laws because of various misunderstandings, ego, and malevolence, however parts of the world gradually came to see Jim Crow laws and similar laws as toxic to welfare & stability, hence they were removed. It is currently very unlikely for them to come back.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 05:25 AM |
|
|
The question isn't whether the state is capable of enacting and enforcing those laws - whether it has the manpower, resources, etc. The question is whether the law is morally justified, i.e. whether the state has the authority to enforce it, and whether those who resist it are in the right. To conflate the ability to enforce a law with the authority to enforce it is to confuse is and ought.
I'm repeating myself, so if it's still not clear, I'll drop out of the discussion for now.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 05:39 AM |
|
|
Jim Crow laws are not regarded as legitimate because they were toxic to the welfare & stability of the world. The ability for the state to infringe on a person's private property for various reasons is considered legitimate because those infringements are beneficial to the welfare & stability of the world (though not necessarily all of them). That is because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and relatively few people accept the idea that individual actions exist in a vacuum. The reason they do not accept that idea is the reason that they also do not accept absolute sovereignty in private property.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 05:46 AM |
|
|
Jim Crow laws were regarded as legitimate at the time. In fact, many of history's atrocities (those didn't involve mass murder) involved laws that were considered legitimate but violated property rights. Perhaps in the future, people will view us as barbarians for allowing the violations of property rights that currently exist.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 05:49 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Jim Crow laws were regarded as legitimate at the time. In fact, many of history's atrocities (those didn't involve mass murder) involved laws that were considered legitimate but violated property rights. Perhaps in the future, people will view us as barbarians for allowing the violations of property rights that currently exist.
By many people they were seen as legitimate, but not by everybody.
It's possible they will look at it that way concerning private property in the future (although being from the future doesn't make you right), but I don't think they will, because I don't think they will consider (all of) those incidences to be immoral violations.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 05:57 AM |
|
|
Once again, you need real life context, the legitimacy of this or that restriction heavily depends on the context. There is no general rule that can deal with every little detail of life. That's why law books are thin and that's why lawyers spend a lot of time in the library, studying "case by examples." Barbarians were barbarians because of the way they lived, produced food, settled etc etc. There is no principle that ideally fits every situation and every sociological habitat. If state restricts me from watching porn in my home, I consider it authoritarian and absurd by today's standards, if it restricts me from landlording 15 illegal aliens, I don't consider it overabusive. Property rights never meant complete legislation over your land, that is just in your head. Property rights and the power of legislation are different things.
Early twentieth century, all the airspace above your land is considered also your property, airplanes come along, farmer sues plane company for scaring his chickens. Judge says, the law no longer applies, because of new technology, definition of your property changed.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 06:04 AM |
|
|
A polite reminder that this thread is about immigration, not property rights.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 11:20 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 11:30, 28 Jan 2014.
|
blizzardboy said:
The ability for the state to infringe on a person's private property for various reasons is considered legitimate because those infringements are beneficial to the welfare & stability of the world (though not necessarily all of them).
How are those infringemengts beneficial to the "welfare & stability of the world"? I wonder the same thing about restricting immigration. No borders would certainly benefit the welfare of far more people than the natives of the country being immigrated to. It will also lead to great income inequalities and poverty which many natives don't want to experience in a first world country (as long as people are impoverished in other countries, where they don't have to see them, it's usually ok). Already the free movement of just the EU has led to an explosion of beggars on the streets and the begining of shantytowns. If your labour market isn't unionised and thus protectionistic, then unqualified nationals may also see their wages shrink as people willing to accept a lower pay (that is still miles better from where they came) outcompete them. The alternative to that, i.e. protecting the domestic workers, is more beggars. Still, all these are negative consequences of the greater good. So if the goal is to improve the general welfare of people then is it justified for natives to oppose immigration that improves the welfare of the many if it doesn't benefit them, the few?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
| |
|
|
