Monday, December 12, 2005

Immigration: Private Property or Freedom of Movement

Need to throw these thoughts out... for further analysis: Private property - arising out of self-autonomy - fundamental in nature Private property implies a method or means of gaining and owning such property... the method or means have to be legitimate inorder to fit the definition of property -- property is that which is rightfully owned -- what is the legal definition of property? If the means and method of gaining property is itself illegitimate, then the property owned through the use of that method is also illegitimate. In other words, if I kill a man who I know will outbid me at an auction so that I can be the highest bidder, then that which I have rightfully owned by bidding becomes illegal property because I committed illegal activities to get it. (Right? I don't know. Maybe. Are there any caveats?) So, if an immigrant enter illegally and then owns property in gainful employment, would all of that property then also be illegal and subject to seizure by the state? No. It can't be. There must be a separation between means and ends. Production is not the same thing as the product, and a cause is not on the same moral, ethical platform as the effect. Illegal immigration is illegal only because of a whimsical fiat by the most populous voices. It was not illegal for the early puritan immigrants to enter American, since there were no such laws. Can laws be randomly made to dictate anything based upon the whim and fancy of the contemporary society? Clearly no. However, today America as a collective group of citizens own "America" the land. Hence, illegal immigration could be a violation of the property rights of the citizens as a collective whole, who own America. Any illegitimate movement would be encroaching upon the private property of Americans. Right? No. It can't be. How does one become American? The overwhelming majority of the first "Americans" were not born here... they moved here. Hence, American citizenship is open to some immigrants -- or atleast was open to some of them at one time. If collective ownership requires one to be American, then.... ugh, I'm getting muddled. Owning "America" the land as a collective whole cannot be possible. Why not? There's something wrong. The collective whole needs to have legitimate right to claim that status. Citizenship. But immigrants also can and have become citizens. So, they can claim that ownership too. But, collectivist talks and perspectives just don't work... because they typically collapse in disagreement and in the suppression of minority voices.


Blogger Ergo Sum said...


12/12/2005 04:51:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home