 |
Comments |
|
 | Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 3:37:41 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Sascha Settegast
E-mail: sascha.settegast(at)gmx.de
URL: http://www.sascha-settegast.de
Well. At present, it seems, I have no other choice than to become a genius. *g* |
|
| Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 6:46:18 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Paul Lin
E-mail: paul.lin(at)hushmail.com
I agree with you that the US should liberalize its immigration laws, but I don't think immigrating to
to the US is a good investment. I have studied in the US and worked in quite a few places in the US.
The tax burden and living expenses are simply too high for a new immigrant to become rich and successful
in the US. There are many other countries with less tax burden, more tax avoiding opportunities, and more
economic freedom than the US. Some of them have fewer opportunities, but that can change because all
you need is capital and good business ideas to create opportunities. |
|
| Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 7:46:54 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Rob Abiera
URL: http://moralitywar.blogspot.com
"There are many other countries with less tax burden, more tax avoiding opportunities, and more economic freedom than the US."
Well, now, THAT'S an interesting comment! Can I get you to expand on this, Mr. Lin? Exactly where, pray tell, are these other countries? And what are the politico-economic realities in these other countries that give them greater "economic" freedom than the US? |
|
| Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 8:02:54 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Paul Lin
E-mail: paul.lin(at)hushmail.com
Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Singapore, Tax Heavens in the Caribbeans, and Dubai.
There is a list in http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm
I would make adjustments, though. The scores of US and Canada should be lowered from my experience.
New Zealand and Australia have a higher tax burdens from my online sources, so I would lower their scores, too. |
|
| Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 8:13:03 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Monica
E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com
Rob, it's a well-known fact that corporate tax rates are very very high in the US in comparison to other developed countries. Many start ups seek to move off-shore to avoid it. |
|
| Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 10:33:24 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Billy Beck
E-mail: wjbiii(at)frontiernet.net
URL: http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
"I think the USA has a moral obligation to liberalize immigration."
Not until the welfare state is spiked through the heart. This is something about which Milton Freidman was completely correct. That way lies madness. |
|
| Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 10:49:07 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: John Harris
E-mail: John.Harris00 at gmail.com
Of course the single easiest way to become a US Citizen, Marry one.
John. |
|
| Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 12:40:49 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Sascha Settegast
E-mail: sascha.settegast(at)gmx.de
Anyone marry me please? ;)) |
|
| Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 13:00:35 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
I do not know where they get the "six to 11" year figure for green cards via the job offer/employment path; mine was three years from initial entry in 1997. The last time I talked to anyone going through the process since then, I was told that the GC process had been streamlined a bit since, but that conversation was in 2004.
IF it's six to 11 years now, something's really changed. |
|
| Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 13:11:43 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
Sascha: Perhaps you need to post your profile onto MailOrderGermanObjectivistGrooms.net ;-) |
|
| Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 13:28:59 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Chris
E-mail: mrcrippa(at)hotmail.com
When I talk negative about the socialist society and mindset we have here in Sweden, someone will always tell me "well if you don't like it get out of the country then!". Guess what, I would if I could, and I'd probably be able to land a great job in the U.S. pretty fast too. |
|
| Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 13:32:03 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Chris
E-mail: mrcrippa(at)hotmail.com
Good post btw =) |
|
| Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 16:25:12 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: New-Be
E-mail: SteelJaw22(at)yahoo.com
"Not until the welfare state is spiked through the heart. This is something about which Milton Freidman was completely correct. That way lies madness."
Billy, could you elaborate on this. I see that there is some disagreement among Objectivists about immigration. Some like Harry Binswanger want to open the doors completely. While others like Grant Long from The Dugout blog believe that in today's context of multiculturalism and socialism that it would be better to restrain immigration. You sound like you are making a similar argument by your use of the word "madness." I'm for open immigration but I do have concerns about such things as Muslim* immigrants in the context of multiculturalism and the ability of America to assimilate 3rd world immigrants. This is why I ask.
* Ed Cline had a blog post some time ago where he showed statistics of what happens when Muslim populations start to grow. Long story short, the more Muslims in a country the more unrest and political turmoil and the greater the power of Sharia Law. There are no exceptions anywhere on Earth. |
|
| Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 19:26:26 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: John Harris
E-mail: John.Harris00 at gmail.com
Sasha - Are you a cute German girl?
... if not, then I'll see what I can do. I'm in the far Left State of California.
John. |
|
| Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 20:39:32 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
New-Be: that issue is a matter of debate even on Harry's list, because of the fact that not everything can be done at once. Some things would have to be phased in, to permit adjustments.
Taxes, for example, could not be zeroed immediately by an Objectivist president; an alternative funding scheme, even if already worked out, would have to be phased in as the government liquidates its property and debt.
Immigration is also one of those things; IMO the borders should eventually be open (though I differ with Dr. Binswanger on precisely how open they should be), but until the nation is able to handle it, that might be best left for last, in terms of what we Objectivists should push for. |
|
| Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 22:27:30 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Michael Labeit
E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com
Binswanger's view regarding open borders corresponds with the view endorsed by the "orthodox" Objectivists (Ayn Rand Institute, the Objective Standard, NoodleFood).
Frankly, I believe it is also the correct view. The welfare state creates unnecessary immigration costs indeed, but the benefits of open immigration far exceed the welfarist costs. Immis are, in cold economic terms, labour inputs. The more factors of production, the better. As labour factors increase, the cost of labour decreases. So as a result of open immigration, production would increase and prices would fall.
The "problem" of Muslim immigration is a dilemma only for the Europeans. The French, for instance, keep many black muslims in suburban housing projects, away from urban areas and thus away from jobs (muslims represent labour competition and if there's one thing Europeans hate, its competition).
Its far easier for muslims to integrate in America than in the EU. A derivative of this is the sheer quantity of muslim run small businesses in NY city. All the corner stores and "bodegas" near me are owned by muslims. Jamaica and Atlantic Aves in Queens are litered with Halal meat producers.
By contrast, it is far more difficult for anyone, especially muslims, to establish private enterprises in the EU. As a result, they form exclusive ethnic neighborhoods and avoid integration. Discontent is a result. |
|
| Friday, October 24, 2008 at 10:35:16 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Don Kenner
E-mail: dbkenner(at)earthlink.net
"If someone wants to work and someone wants to hire him and they are not shmucks or scoundrels we should allow them to make their own choice."
And how, pray tell, would we weed out the schmucks and the scoundrels? Along with the hard-working sort that justifiably want to come here, we also get a fair share of thieves, rapists, Jihadists (or supporters of Jihadists), looters, and general malcontents. Also, this pushes the population toward a majority ultra-statists who believe redistribution of wealth is what Jesus intended.
The first part of the quote is interesting. If I may add some emphasis:
*IF* someone wants to work *AND* someone wants to hire him and they are not shmucks or scoundrels we should allow them to make their own choice.
So -- if a private entity wishes to sponsor that person and pay the costs of getting them here (and sending them back, if necessary), then we might have something more akin to a free market immigration system.
And what happens when the opening of the floodgates makes it MORE DIFFICULT for our Canadian Doctor friend to push through the crowd and join us in this grand experiment called America? |
|
| Friday, October 24, 2008 at 11:12:33 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
DonK: My Canadian physician colleague was writing off-the-cuff when he referred to "schmucks and scoundrels". (It was actually a quick impromptu Blackberry note that the sent me.)
For a more formal expression of the key principle, I like Craig Biddle's article where he states:
"Open immigration does not mean that anyone may enter the country at any location or in any manner he chooses; it is not unchecked or unmonitored immigration. Nor does it mean that anyone who immigrates to America should be eligible for U.S. citizenshipâ€"the proper requirements of which are a separate matter. Open immigration means that anyone is free to enter and reside in Americaâ€"providing that he enters at a designated checkpoint and passes an objective screening process, the purpose of which is to keep out criminals, enemies of America, and people with certain kinds of contagious diseases." |
|
| Saturday, October 25, 2008 at 6:30:06 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Doug H.
E-mail: radiotheatre[at]gmail[dot]com
Oh gawd. Don't remind me. Britain is similarly messed up. I tried to move there a year and a half ago. While it was possible to stay for a year, I would have had to marry, convince someone to put me on salary or take a Master's degree in order to actually "immigrate". None of these options were particularly appealing.
My sister and her husband have just moved to Texas tho. I'll have to ask about the details.
Healthcare here in Canada is pretty scary. But not scary enough as to facilitate moving to Jesusland...yet. |
|
| Saturday, October 25, 2008 at 13:26:35 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: New-Be
E-mail: SteelJaw22(at)yahoo.com
"The "problem" of Muslim immigration is a dilemma only for the Europeans."
I don't agree with this.
If the US should continue down the destructive path of multiculturalism and socialism and end up like Europe (or worse), then the presence of large numbers of Muslims will be a problem here as well. In order for a nation to assimilate immigrants it has to have free markets and free institutions as well as a strong belief in the validity and goodness of its culture. Today's America is increasingly becoming socialist with mounting pressure group warfare, and many of those pressure groups are racial or ethnic pressure groups. Also, America is being gutted by egalitarian and multiculturalist ideology which is strongest on the Left.
Today's Left hates America. It is defined by an extreme sense of self-loathing. The culture reflects this. I don't know if today's America can assimilate non-European or 3rd world immigrants if they enter in large enough numbers. And I definitely think that if Muslims should ever increase in number here they will become as divisive as they have in Europe. I'm for open immigration but I think that a multi-racial, multi-cultural society does present many challenges and problems. Such a society needs a pro-reason, pro-individualist, pro-capitalist cultural landscape to survive and avoid race and ethic wars. America is in danger of losing the last remaining elements of the Enlightenment legacy it has left. I feel that such an America would have severe problems dealing with immigration.
So I agree with Jim May and think that open immigration is not the first and most important thing that Objectivists should fight for. I see it as a question of timing. If Objectivism should come to dominate the culture and then the culture moves significantly in the direction of capitalism and rational philosophy, then open up the gates. Only the best type of people will want to come here if there were no free lunches and no multicultural dynamics to undermine the culture. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Paul Hsieh
Comments
