Tonight I’ll tell you why I believe that even immigrants and advocates of open immigration should oppose Obama’s executive amnesty. Join in live, either by phone or in the chatroom, and tell me what you think!
The show can be accessed here.
To access the show’s page at BlogTalk Radio, which will allow you to check out a past episode or to subscribe via iTunes and other services, use this link.
To access the iTunes store page for “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard,” where you can find past episodes, subscribe, and leave ratings and reviews (pretty please!), use this link.
Finally, if you would like to support the podcast financially, please donate using your Pay Pal account or Credit Card here.
Program Notes
Two taxi-cab thoughts I forgot to say during the show:
1. Insofar as some immigrants think they’re getting a benefit, as they’ll be eligible for some freebies, as Objectivists we know that the stolen–which is what welfare benefits are–cannot truly be a benefit to anyone.
2. The Muslims who I believe should be excluded are those who believe in waging Jihad in order to establish Shariah and/or a Caliphate. The same would apply to any people advocating violent revolution in the cause of communism, ecological totalitarianism, etc.
3. A more precise formulation of my response to Ted Cruz’s “Stop Obama’s Amnesty” graphic: It’s not clear that 316 million citizens understand separation of powers–or even that they’re interested in preserving it. But nonetheless separation of powers is an integral part of a constitutional republic established on the principle and for the purpose of protecting individual rights.
Don't Let It Go 
As Limbaugh says its a democratic voter drive.
Millions of people from leftist countries who are disproportionately on welfare.
The whole country will become like California.
It’s not clear whether any of that matters much, relatively speaking (although I agree it’s potentially quite bad). Tonight I’ll explain why Obama’s Amnesty is actually worthless to anyone who purports to be in favor of it, including the democrats, the advocates of open immigration, and the immigrants themselves.
Enter your cWhy I Stopped Spending My Time on Politics…
And Why I Think You Should Too
https://www.caseyresearch.com/freeman/why-i-stopped-spending-my-time-on-politics-and-why-i-think-you-should-too
“Embedded in the practice of politics is a superstition, which is this:
If we complain enough, and in the right ways, we’ll get what we want without having to take any risks at all.
In other words, we want to believe that politics provides us an easy way out… that our complaints invoke magic.
But if we want things to be different, we must act to make them different. Politics shuts that down by making people think that talking is magic and passivity is a virtue.
So, we have millions of decent and capable people who are more than able to solve their own problems but who never consider acting on their own, because they’re intimidated and because they think that they can get what they want without risk, by talking correctly.
Politics has given them an attractive lie to believe in: Change your world: no pain, no strain, no risk.
Not only is this promise a rank superstition, but it also sidetracks people from actually changing their world. Why spend your blood, sweat, and tears when mere complaining will work the same or better?”
Agreed: https://selfishminimalist.wordpress.com
Steve Simpson at ARI said, during his Q & A the other night, that politics was, at best, defensive. Real “offensive” change cannot be achieved via politics. Still, one crucial element of living a rational life in an irrational society is pronouncing moral judgment on all the irrationality. That’s what we do here, once a week, which seems like just about enough, yes?
Amy. If you don’t think the west should allow islamic immigration then it seems to me that you don’t support “open immigration.” Consistent open immigration types such as Biddle and Binswanger think there should be almost no limits to Moslem immigration even if a country turns Islamic.
I support “open immigration” within the context of a government that protects the individual rights of its citizens. So, I’d want to keep out those who: (1) commit significant crimes, violent or otherwise; (2) harbor deadly, highly contagious diseases (such as Ebola); (3) are actively involved in an effort to destroy us and our way of life.
Otherwise, anyone who wants to–and has the means to do so–should be allowed to come. Today, unfortunately, letting anyone and everyone in means giving handouts to anyone and everyone. I am an opponent of the welfare state in general anyway, and so I would want to at least make immigrants ineligible for benefits for many years (or, preferably, ASAP, eliminate the welfare state). But I reject the idea that we should keep people out because they are competing for jobs, even today, when jobs are artificially scarce because of government interference in the economy.
Hope that helps to clarify where I stand. I would still call my position an “open immigration” position, as everything in the realm of politics exists in the context of having a government whose job it is to protect individual rights.
Thanks for listening and commenting here!
I agree that immigrants don’t compete for jobs. But a flood of immigrants would suppress wage rates.
Say the usa had open immigration with respect to India. Indians would have an incentive to come to the usa until wage rates. Are equalized. That would mean a much lower standard of living for Americans.
Even if the USA had a perfect government I don’t see how a single moslem would be a good idea.
Taken to an extreme open immigration is altruism with a vengeance.
Amy. I read your taxi cab notes.
Now im real confused.
You support immigration of peaceful moslems even if it means israel and the west becoming majority islamic?
This is an area for line-drawing, but clearly there is a group of “Muslims” who do not pose a threat to my way of life, who are content to live and let live, and operate by persuasion alone. In addition, in a proper society, people would have the right to discriminate and associate as they choose, unlike today. And, we will, most importantly, have the right of free speech, and the truth on our side.
So in principal you believe israel shouldhave open immigration so long ad good Moslems become the majority?
The Constitution does not authorize the Federal government to control the travel of people into or out of the country or who can live in the country. The very idea of such controls would never have occurred to the Founding Fathers. Such practices did not exist in their day and did not arise for another 150 years.
To find a Constitutional justification for such powers you would have to appeal to either (1) national defense or (2) defining citizenship. Nether of these encompass anything like what the government does or what so many Americans want it to do.
More on Ted Cruz:
http://lifetoday.org/video/in-god-we-trust/
Under Obama’s plan the immigrants will get work permits. Since most of these peiple are hispanics they will get affirmative action privileges. It will also help them get drivers licenses and other documents to get on welfare. And their anchor babies can stay as well.
Sounds like lots of benefits to me.