November 4, 2016

Open Boulder?

Actually, I think Boulder SHOULD be accepting all manor and flavor of ME refugees: speak with your backyard, not your ballot!

Seriously, though, here is a thoughtful piece from Dr. Erler (from KaliFORnia!) who postulates:

a world without borders is a world without citizens, and a world without citizens is a world without the rights and privileges that attach exclusively to citizenship. Rights and liberties exist only in separate and independent nations; they are the exclusive preserve of the nation-state. Constitutional government only succeeds in the nation-state, where the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. By contrast, to see the globalist principle in practice, look at the European Union. The EU is not a constitutional government; it is an administrative state ruled by unelected bureaucrats. It attempts to do away with both borders and citizens, and it replaces rights and liberty with welfare and regulation as the objects of its administrative rule.
and my favorite idea that makes me weirdo in nearly every political discussion:
The idea that every right has a corresponding duty or obligation was essential to the social compact understanding of the American founding.

He states "tolerance" has displaced morality in the modern Prog's world, and claims that they must also throw reason out the door.
Over the past century and more, this morality grounded in the American founding has been successfully eroded by Progressivism. This erosion is manifested today in the morality of value-free relativism. According to this new morality, all value judgments are equal. Reason cannot prove that one value is superior to or more beneficial than another, because values are not capable of rational analysis; they are merely idiosyncratic preferences. In this value-free universe, the only value that is “objectively” of higher rank is tolerance. Equal toleration of all values—what is called today a commitment to diversity—is the only “reasonable” position. And note that it is always called a commitment to diversity. It is a commitment because it cannot be rational in any strict sense—it exists in a value-free world from which reason has been expelled.
and he answers one that has riddled me for a while:
Note that these leaders [Obama, Merkel] show no such enthusiasm for admitting Christian refugees from Middle Eastern violence, or even Yazidis, who have suffered horribly from the ravages of Islamic terror. These refugees, of course, represent no danger to America. Only by admitting those who do represent a danger can we display to the world “who we are as a people”—a people willing to sacrifice ourselves to vouchsafe our commitment to tolerance.

Lastly, he proposes a simple and effective rule to replace the vetting, which all agree is nigh impossible:
One condition for claiming refugee status in the Refugee Act of 1980 is religious persecution. This necessarily means that any applicant for religious asylum would have to submit to questioning about his religious beliefs and (presumably) the sincerity of those beliefs. Should asylum be extended to the adherents of religions that do not recognize the free exercise rights of other religions?

Good down to earth read, for such a heady start!

Immigration Regulation and Administrative Law Posted by nanobrewer at November 4, 2016 12:17 AM

Not sure if I'm misinterpreting but I think I disagree with your first pull quote. Rights do not come from citizenship. As so eloquently stated in our founding documents, we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.

The rights do not attach to citizenship, they attach to human beings. Then you can live in a country that either protects and defends those rights or infringes them.

I would have no problem with a world government provided that government was set up to defend individual rights.

Posted by: dagny at November 4, 2016 6:20 PM

Voting is an example of a right (or privilege) of citizenship. Of course, in a just system, voting would be more for amusement than for protecting against infringement of your rights. Unfortunately, nobody lives in a just system anymore.

Posted by: johngalt at November 5, 2016 10:59 PM

I have huge respect for Hillsdale, but I am going with swing-and-a-miss here.

Continuing your right and privilege excerpt:

The idea that every right has a corresponding duty or obligation was essential to the social compact understanding of the American founding. Thus whatever was destructive of the public good or public happiness, however much it might have contributed to an individual's private pleasures or imagined pleasures, was not a part of the "pursuit of happiness" and could be proscribed by society. Liberty was understood to be rational liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was understood to be the rational pursuit of happiness--that is to say, not only a natural right but a moral obligation as well.

I don't think that paragraph is going to engender much affection 'round these parts.

The comparisons with Germany are specious. One could fairly could claim Germany to be a reduction ad absurdam to question my belief but it is not a model of what is proposed. Germany is smaller in area, population and GDP and is accepting overwhelming numbers without any opportunities for vetting or tracing.

Erler suggests refugee camps but we have experience with those in Palestine/Israel which make the German example look like paradise.

I think a nation of 300,000,000 can accept 10,000 human beings who have been displaced from their home by war. And I believe those 10,000 will cause the exact same amount of trouble as the next 10,000 babies born in Colorado.

Posted by: jk at November 7, 2016 10:09 AM

@ Dagny:

rights do not attach to citizenship, they attach to human beings
As a practical matter, they are only upheld in pluralistic democracies. They may attach to humans, but they do not stick around for long in Venezuela, or the old USSR.

Posted by: nanobrewer at November 7, 2016 11:35 PM | What do you think? [4]