After Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in 2005, one of the principal ways its victims helped themselves was by leaving. Katrina prompted one of the biggest resettlements in American history. Who would have blocked Interstate 10 with armed guards, forcing hundreds of thousands of people to suffer in the disaster zone, no matter how much assistance was coming in from outside? We wouldn't have done that, because it would have made us collectively responsible for their continued suffering. Why then, in the thoughtful debate that has emerged over how best to aid Haiti and help its citizens help themselves, are Americans still quiet about this sinister face of our immigration policy?
Posted via web from crasch's posterous
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
archerships
no subject
Date: 2010-01-27 10:38 pm (UTC)Of course, "we" didn't do that, but just the police force of that parish or whatever.
correct
Date: 2010-01-27 11:30 pm (UTC)http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/15/60minutes/main1129440.shtml
Ben
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 12:25 am (UTC)Last time I checked, freedom of association was a libertarian value.
You are free to consider our exercise of this freedom as an atrocity, but if it is, it's one that every other country is engaging in as well -- we're not blocking anyone else from accepting Haitian refugees. Perhaps the best thing you can do to stand up for such a belief is to convince David Henderson and company to join you in emigrating to a place like Costa Rica, then demonstrate the practical viability of your moral code there.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 01:05 am (UTC)A U.S. individual, business or charity organization is not free to associate (in person in the United States) with a Haitian refugee, unless the government gives said refugee permission to cross the border.
A method of immigration control that would lessen the abrogation of freedom of association would be to allow any individual, business or charity organization to sponsor the visa of a foreign person. The sponsor is responsible for that person following the terms of his visa, not breaking U.S. laws, and perhaps must post a monetary bond.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 03:25 am (UTC)Otherwise, freedom of association is no more valuable than "freedom of speech" when only popular speech is protected.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 08:25 am (UTC)In a free society, this only applies to property you own. For example, if you decided you didn't want to serve black people at your restaurant, I would defend your right to do so.
However, you do not have the right to demand that I refuse to serve black people at _my_ restaurant.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 02:27 pm (UTC)Keep working on the seasteading projects (and posting about them here!) so that we can create a more free society... but let's not pretend that such a society is one in which we live just yet.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 03:57 pm (UTC)We don't live in your vision of a 'free society', where all spatial property is privately owned, so we're forced (by these circumstances) to make trade-offs. On balance, immigration is more liberty for more people.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 08:19 pm (UTC)So we may not believe the blanket statement you just made, that "immigration is good for economic growth," because some immigrants are, and some aren't. We may not believe the blanket statement you just made that immigrants are "not a drag on public resources"—some are; some aren't. We may not believe the blanket statement you just made, that "immigration is primarily based on positive-sum market interactions"—some are; some aren't.
To find out whether any of these statements are true on a case-by-case basis, we have to look at the culture from which the immigrants are escaping. What kind of government did they choose for themselves? What kind of work ethic did they embody? Did they make demands from a mindset of entitlement, or were they charitable and effective producers on their own?
If we were talking about an earthquake that struck Luxembourg and we had to find homes for their best and brightest in a hurry, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because I wouldn't have bothered to register my disagreement with the top-level post. In that case, you would generally be correct: that on balance, immigration would be an improvement for us. However, we're not talking about Luxembourg, are we? We ignore what their culture tells us about their people, "on balance," at our own peril.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-29 06:56 am (UTC)What kind of government did they choose for themselves? What kind of work ethic did they embody? Did they make demands from a mindset of entitlement, or were they charitable and effective producers on their own?
In poor countries, I suggest it is unlikely that an individual could be said to have chosen for herself her form of government. I also doubt the welfare of an individual in the poor world is very strongly correlated to what work ethic she 'embodies'.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 01:09 am (UTC)Last time I checked, freedom of association was a libertarian value.
Indeed. And also private property, free trade, and individual liberty. Immigration restrictions are in opposition to all of those principles. You seem to be under the misapprehension that your freedom of association gives you the right to decide who _I_ associate with.
You are free to consider our exercise of this freedom as an atrocity, but if it is, it's one that every other country is engaging in as well
Yes, and? Many countries prevented the Jews from escaping during WWII as well. That a moral failing is widespread, doesn't make it right.
the majority of US citizens do not feel admitting them would be in our interest
Yes, and at one time, the majority of U.S. citizens believed that the women should not have the right to vote, that slaves should not be freed, and (currently) that people should be imprisoned for drug use. Majority opinion is a poor metric for judging the ethics or wisdom of a policy.
Given the dim view that we take of previous generations infringements of individual liberty, I'm confident that future generations will hold a similarly dim view of the arguments of the restrictionists now.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 03:27 am (UTC)I seem to recall many statements from Houston residents and law enforcement officials who said later they wished they could have done exactly this, if they'd known what they were in for.