Saturday, April 19, 2008

The Citizenry Is Not Known To Be A Juridical Person Of Penal Responsibility Relative To The Prospective Immigrant

Craig Biddle implies otherwise, though, as here: "Punishing an individual for someone else’s wrongdoing is patently immoral—[JB replies: Not always, failing to act against the receiving of stolen goods is obviously immoral though, and why punish the citizenry for 'someone else's wrongdoing' in the past? It is also not known to be a punishment, to deny a prospective immigrant what is not known to be his by right: a clearance to immigrate on net public subsidy from those here, whose rights we are obliged to protect, unlike the foreigner] and the wrongdoing here is not just that of the relatively few [?] immigrants who seek [or just get?] welfare handouts.[ it's not just outright welfare, going on to net public subsidy is all but inevitable for immigrants not selected for uncommonly high quality] The greater wrongdoing is that of the American intellectuals, citizens, and politicians who established and who maintain the welfare state. [ JB: that someone else may show 'the greater wrongdoing', does not take away from the wrong which is done to the net taxpayer, which is itself a proof of the immigrant's enmity or hostility] For America to bar would-be immigrants from entry to America because of immoral “welfare” policies instituted by Americans is the height of injustice."
How is that to be known? Does it ignore the injustice of Stalin toward the Kulaks, and that of Pol Pot towards the town-dwellers, and of Mao towards the landowners and other victims of communization?
The height of injustice; what an evaluative indulgence. It is not known to be an injustice at all, to deny protection of our government and its system of justice to prospective immigrants, even if they are not obvious terrorists or disease-spreaders. Why would it be the moral responsibility of the citizenry to somehow hugely reduce the net public subsidy on a national scale, while allowing NO moral responsibility to fall on the prospective immigrant, to not increase even slightly, that same problem of net public subsidy? Why must the citizenry pay reparations, as they might be called, to the incoming immigrant, for not having succeeded in abolishing all net public subsidy? Is the citizenry a juridical person when one wants to steal something for the aggrandizement of the prospective immigrant; but billions of foreigners are individual holders of rights that they may enforceably summon OUR government to protect? That is not known to be true. How do such and so many foreigners have a claim on our net taxpayers, to extend our government to them? Loyalty to fellow citizens comes first, not least because that loyalty possesses attributes of sovereignty through the nation, unlike any others. The wish to make America the justiciary of all the world does not hold any sovereign attributes. Sovereignty is not found in the wish to take care of foreigners, equalizing and pretending to universal brotherhood with all of them, including the wildest hostiles.
Similarly, if we are said to have obligation to extend protection and additional resources insofar as foreigners' rights are inadequately protected where they are, but they have no obligation not to immediately increase the level of aggression on citizens, such as the net taxpayers, here; how is there any justice or respect for rights shown by treating their rights or privileges as worth more than our rights in that way? Rights being not self-enforcing, the advocate of such mass immigration is pretending that we have a duty to extend our government and its expenditures out to all these foreigners as if they had rights to our government, but the citizens somehow have only duties to accept increase of government aggression on the net taxpayer, to protect some unenforceable 'rights' of foreigners, to take a share of our government. There is however, a responsibility to protect the rights of the net taxpayers of our citizenry from the increase of aggression occasioned by incoming foreigners, such as any who start in using even small net public subsidy. If it could be proven that the citizens of whichever countries have more rights-respecting governments, are obliged to allow the increase of aggression upon fellow citizens, in order to give some extra protection to the foreigner who is relatively lacking in it, why are attempted smears used instead ( e.g. racism, xenophobia, fascism, objectionable nationalism, etc.)? A citizen reaching the age of majority is not really equivalent to an immigrant arriving in a way which increases the level of aggression to the same extent with each, since the citizen becomes an adult as a result of the rights of the parents to be free of the aggression which would disallow them having children and maintaining them to adulthood. They do so quite often on the perfectly reasonable expectation that their children will be allowed to inherit their citizenship, and there would be obvious increase of aggression on the citizenry if we dispossessed them in the same way as foreigners may be deported. The protection of our government is not to be had for free, but is a charge on the net taxpayers here. The net taxpayer here OWNS his claim to allegiance relative to the incoming foreigner who raises the level of aggression here. Therefore, if the immigrant as such is to be held blameless, it is an inconsistency highly subversive of propriety and of loyalty to fellow nationals, to imply that the net taxpayer as such, and of our citizenry, is obliged to extend our government in this way to the immigrant as such. What could it be in the nature here of the net taxpayer as such, that could oblige him to pay for government services to be extended to foreigners.
Is the distinction between citizen and prospective immigrant really not morally important? If they're all the same regarding important moral distinctions, then reparations owed by an aggressor country and its citizens, should be levied throughout the world, and paid to all countries? To say we owe justice to foreigners is not known to be true, not if it means that foreigners such as the prospective immigrant are said to have the right to be treated the same as our citizens, regarding a claim on the protection afforded by OUR government. There is no obligation to extend the protection of our government, owned as it is by the citizenry, and not the people by it, out to foreigners. Why would one foreigner have more such claim than another, and if a hostile one made that claim, by reference to whose rights and whose ownership of which government, would the claims of the incoming hostile be rejected? The nation means the people who are loyal to each other over against the foreigner, who enters with aggression. It means at least that much. The nation is an allegiance to certain people in a definite territory, against the foreigner. This is also why one-world loyalties are contradictory and nonsensical; if there are no foreigners, war would be with the non-foreign foreigner? If the foreigner takes net public subsidy here that is a hostile act by a foreigner within the borders, and the officials who supply it are traitors as defined in the US constitution, and those immigrants are accessory to treason, a capital offense. A citizen doing the same is in a quite different moral category. How can it be that foreigners living overseas, are not chargeable with treason against America, if they have rights here and are morally not essentially in a different category than citizens?
There are those who say that there is no significant difference in moral status between citizen and foreigner, even in regard to the increase of aggression. An additional foreigner here is not like an additional citizen born or reaching an age of majority, in relation to the increase of aggression caused by him. One of the reasons for this, is that citizens have older relatives here who have paid taxes, being sometimes net taxpayers, and especially so at the times in their lives when the next generation is starting out as adults. Others have older relatives who have never been net taxpayers, but the next generation then only replaces these, resulting in no increase in the level of aggression against the net taxpayers. Still others have older relatives who are not net taxpayers, while their replacements happen to be more numerous, and these increase the level of aggression in much the same way as immigrants coming in on to net public subsidy, with no relatives to compensate for them beforehand or during. Immigration on to net public subsidy resembles, and is in other ways even worse for us than, the expansion of an exclusively parasitical lineage of our citizenry. How can this be good, and how is it really such a matter of indifference, as if there were no moral differences in the status of citizens over against foreigners here? We have millions here who not only parasitize in an expanding circle of aggression, but who cannot even be expected to be loyal, which is another significant difference.Added later:Between Foreigners And Citizens, There Exists Another Great Moral And Political Difference Relative To Penalties...The foreigner has usable foreign connections in terms of deportability, while the citizen only rarely does. The possibilities for sentencing a foreigner here thus include deportation: for life, for a term of years, with dependents or without, with assistance for resettlement or without, and more. If citizens have usable foreign connections then perhaps, universal or isonomic rules could apply to all residents regardless of citizenship, relative to deportability for having increased the aggression here. In any case, the above demonstrates a large and significant moral and political difference between [A] foreigners and [B] citizens without usable foreign connections, relative to a penalty of deportation. As to the objection that citizens don't get deported so why should foreigners; actually citizens do sometimes get deported, as when they have been shown to have used fraud to obtain citizenship and are otherwise criminals subject to deportation, and much more along these lines may be done.And this:The concept of rights is deceptive if it does not mean that we each have a right to freedom from aggression, and that it not be increased on us. If an incoming foreigner increases the aggression within the borders, this takes away from our freedom from aggression and that cannot be his right to do, intentionally, negligently or otherwise. If his claim to be allowed to do so, is that he does not have a government which will protect his rights to the same extent as here; that is not known to be our obligation to remedy. If it could be proven that the citizens of whichever countries have more rights-respecting governments, are obliged to allow the increase of aggression upon fellow citizens, in order to give some extra protection to the foreigner who is relatively lacking in it, why wouldn't this demonstration be attempted? The ordinary answer is that we tolerate the immigrant who increases the aggression here, because we can, and his suffering on return, would be worse than the evil which he does here, even though public personalities will rarely admit that an immigrant can do significant evil here. This raises the question of the posting's title: 'Should The Suffering Of All The World Be Spread More Equally Just Because We Can Alleviate Some That Way?' It is not known to be our responsibility to do this. Citizens, including officials, have a responsibility to fellow nationals, not to increase the aggression on these, to whom loyalty is owed, in order to alleviate the suffering of foreigners. There is no degree of suffering of the foreigner, which could be lessened by increasing the aggression on citizens such as the net taxpayers here, which could balance out the damage done by allowing increase of aggression here, to take care of the foreigner here or there.

& U.S. view on international law & a map on Wikipedia & further "Any State Party hereto may denounce this Protocol at any time by a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations." as quoted here No. 97-1754: INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre - Appendix (Merits)Protocol Relating to the Status of RefugeesFrom an earlier post regarding assisted immigration of Islamic polygamists , an illustration.That governments are trying to get away with something as traitorous and destructive as this, means that failing to question their motives in the harshest possible terms, is itself a betrayal.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Genial brief and this enter helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you on your information.