12 Nov 22
@no1marauder saidWow! I wasn't convinced before, but I am now.
Fun fact I came across:
"As a vehement anti-Bolshevist, she knew that she would die waiting in line if she applied for permission to permanently relocate to America, although that's exactly what she intended to do. Temporary tourist visas were easier to land, but only for those who could prove they didn't plan to settle here. So what did Rand do? [b]She committed perju ...[text shortened]... immigrant when she got married."
https://reason.com/2012/02/14/ayn-rand-was-an-illegal-immigrant/
Our best course forward as a nation is to cease all immigration enforcement of any kind. Anyone who comes would be supported courtesy of the American taxpayer until they choose to support themselves. Poor countries, for the cost of a single plane ticket could ship all their mentally ill and infirm to the USA and ease their financial strain by sending all problem cases to the USA. Other countries could empty their prisons for the price of one plane ticket per prisoner.
All countries that enforce borders are stupid. The USA could break out of the irrationality and be the first place on earth to have figured out how much better off we'd be without border enforcement.
All because one of our heroes from 100 years ago doesn't fit perfectly in our ideal mold. Now I see clearly how evil I was to think we should have a border.
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
12 Nov 22
@kevcvs57 saidIt was a sham that lasted for five decades?
Her marriage was a 50yr sham
How about yours?
And you know that ....how, exactly?
After her marriage she went through the naturalization process and became a citizen two years later, her marriage didn't grant her automatic citizenship. She worked for it.
.
12 Nov 22
@jj-adams saidAs do all migrants. Minus your usual casual racist instincts what’s your point.
It was a sham that lasted for five decades?
And you know that ....how, exactly?
After her marriage she went through the naturalization process and became a citizen two years later, her marriage didn't grant her automatic citizenship. She worked for it.
.
Is it she came here as an illegal but she’s white so she gets a pass?
Or
Is it she came here as an illegal but she’s the darling of the right so she gets a pass?
Or a fantastical combo of both those reasons🤔
@jj-adams saidLying on a visa application is an automatic ground for deportation.
It was a sham that lasted for five decades?
And you know that ....how, exactly?
After her marriage she went through the naturalization process and became a citizen two years later, her marriage didn't grant her automatic citizenship. She worked for it.
.
Lilla Haiddar was deported 19 years after she obtained US citizenship simply for lying on a passport application. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/afghani-woman-convicted-lying-obtain-us-citizenship-us-passport
12 Nov 22
@techsouth saidActually, Rand was for "open borders":
Wow! I wasn't convinced before, but I am now.
Our best course forward as a nation is to cease all immigration enforcement of any kind. Anyone who comes would be supported courtesy of the American taxpayer until they choose to support themselves. Poor countries, for the cost of a single plane ticket could ship all their mentally ill and infirm to the USA and ease their ...[text shortened]... it perfectly in our ideal mold. Now I see clearly how evil I was to think we should have a border.
"You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any “self-interest” that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’t claim that anything others may do — for example, simply through competition — is against your self-interest. But above all, aren’t you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed?"
https://ari.aynrand.org/ayn-rand-on-immigration/
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
12 Nov 22
@no1marauder saidShe wasn't talking about the chit from the south we are being overrun by.
Actually, Rand was for "open borders":
"You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any “self-interest” that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’ ...[text shortened]... alive today if our borders had been closed?"[/b]
https://ari.aynrand.org/ayn-rand-on-immigration/
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
12 Nov 22
@no1marauder saidI never said she was a racist.
There's no evidence she was a virulent racist like you are.
Neither am I.
I just know what I see, and I don't deny it.
12 Nov 22
@jj-adams saidI found it interesting that such a right wing icon would use illegal and dishonest means to procure her entry and continued stay in the US and wondered what right wingers would have to say about it. The "rule of law" they often crow about seems to be of no matter in this case.
Ayn Rand escaped from Stalinist Russia, went on to become a major novelist/screenwriter, and you libbies just have to put her down.
Why?
Rand herself, of course, believed in "open borders" and in "rational self-interest" so lying to obtain entry into the US was no big deal for her.
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
12 Nov 22
@no1marauder saidShe would have been killed or put into a labor camp if she returned to Russia.....what would you have done?
I found it interesting that such a right wing icon would use illegal and dishonest means to procure her entry and continued stay in the US and wondered what right wingers would have to say about it. The "rule of law" they often crow about seems to be of no matter in this case.
Rand herself, of course, believed in "open borders" and in "rational self-interest" so lying to obtain entry into the US was no big deal for her.
Jackass.
12 Nov 22
@no1marauder saidYou mean a person born more than 100 years ago before the welfare state believed open borders were viable!!!!!
Actually, Rand was for "open borders":
"You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any “self-interest” that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’ ...[text shortened]... alive today if our borders had been closed?"[/b]
https://ari.aynrand.org/ayn-rand-on-immigration/
My whole intellectual framework just crumbled!!!!
The fact that people 200 years ago could get on boat and take a dangerous and expensive 2 week trans-Atlantic trip and would be allowed in to the US necessitates that we open our borders to anyone who can be given a plane ticket today. The immigration practices that were in place in 1800 are obligatory to be continued perpetually.
I didn't see it before, but it seems so obvious now. If China wanted to buy plane tickets to send illiterate people and criminals from other countries to the US, who am I to object? There is no reason I should have a say in that at all.
Literally every country in the world that restricts immigration has it wrong then (which I think may be 100% of them).
What mistake do you think literally 100% of the countries in the world make in understanding the need for open borders? What do 100% of modern countries not understand that you could explain to them?
Now that I think about it, it seems totally fair. Towns are constitutionally required to offer free education to all resident children. If 10,000 more people immigrate from the heart of Africa and that doubles the size of a small town, of course no one should complain that their property taxes get doubled to educate any child in the world that shows up. The immigrants could live in tents on public land and pay no property taxes. Folks that have lived their for years will have no reason to complain if 50% of their income is being confiscated to educate new immigrants. (And 50% is conservative. If we paid teachers what they were truly worth, property tax really should be closer to 60 or 70% once all the immigrants are free to show up.
New immigration increases our GDP. Similarly, if I let a stranger live for free in my guest bedroom, his wages are now counted in my household income, which obviously goes up now that my house has another wage earner. If my wife and I together make $100,000 per year, if I allow someone to live in my guest bedroom who makes $20,000 per year, my household income is now $120,000. There is absolutely no downside at all. My quality of living is determined totally by my household income just like our quality of life as a nation is determined totally by our GDP.
How could I have been so blind before?