login about faq

Should prospective immigrants be required to prove they have a place to live within the United States? A background check, health inspection, and a basic English test are all part of the process of immigrating to the United States. Should the assurance of residency within the U.S. be among them? The point of which would be to ensure that the nation isn't allowing an influx of homeless people into the country, and instead individuals who show they have a plan to be productive individuals?

Some "libertarians" who support opening up our borders also support having immigrants prove they have a job lined up and a place to live, along with the standard background checks, health inspection, and language test.

asked Jan 29 '13 at 14:14

JK%20Gregg's gravatar image

JK Gregg ♦
427545

edited Jan 30 '13 at 15:35

I've re-worded my initial (poorly written) question. Hope that helps.

(Jan 30 '13 at 15:36) JK Gregg ♦ JK%20Gregg's gravatar image

Thanks, I've deleted my answer, as I initially misread the question.

(Jan 30 '13 at 17:09) anthony anthony's gravatar image

The question asks: "Should prospective immigrants be required to prove they have a place to live within the United States? ... The point of which would be to ensure that the nation isn't allowing an influx of homeless people into the country...?"

In a mixed economy, "homeless people" could be a drain on the country's welfare system and other "social services" provided by government at taxpayer expense. Objectivism, however, advocates a system of individual rights, freedom of action and laissez-faire capitalism (separation of state and economics). Such a system would not have governmental services such as welfare. How, then, would being homeless constitute a violation of anyone's individual rights? Furthermore, why couldn't immigrants get here first, then look for a place to stay, if only temporarily, after they get here and have more opportunity to search for and contact any relatives who may already be here? I can see how a background check (for a criminal or terrorist record) and health inspection can protect the individual rights of others; and perhaps even a basic English test, although I'm not as certain of that. (Were Ellis Island immigrants required to pass a basic English test?) But I certainly do not see how homelessness in and of itself necessarily violates anyone's rights in a free country, and longer term poverty in a free country is likely to be manageable through private charities and the strong work ethic fostered by capitalism.

As for moral and political principles applicable to a mixed economy, that is a far more difficult issue. The most basic Objectivist principle would be to establish a fully consistent system of individual rights as rapidly as reasonably possible, and to speak out in support of it.

answered Feb 02 '13 at 20:29

Ideas%20for%20Life's gravatar image

Ideas for Life ♦
467718

"As for moral and political principles applicable to a mixed economy, that is a far more difficult issue."

This is something I struggle with frequently. I know the value of freedom, and the virtue of Objectivism, including its political conclusions, but alas, I live in a mixed economy, in a progressive state, under a ever-more intrusive federal government. I feel as if my calls for greater freedom equates to yelling at the tide to recede. Being surrounded and outnumbered by altruists, I can't help but be discouraged.

(Feb 06 '13 at 09:49) JK Gregg ♦ JK%20Gregg's gravatar image

"How [under laissez-faire capitalism] would being homeless constitute a violation of anyone's individual rights?"

Depends what you mean by homeless, I guess. But assuming homeless means that you don't have any place to sleep, either by owning, renting, or through the kindness of family/friends/strangers: Under laissez-faire capitalism, wouldn't being homeless require trespassing?

That said, under laissez-faire capitalism, it's hard to see how homelessness, of mentally competent adults capable of passing a background check, under the above definition, would even exist.

(Feb 06 '13 at 19:41) anthony anthony's gravatar image

Under capitalism, I can readily envision someone coming to the U.S., paying his own way to get here, then looking around for a hotel to stay in temporarily (and being able to pay for it) while he searches for a job, with plenty of jobs of wide variety being advertised for applicants.

(Feb 06 '13 at 21:07) Ideas for Life ♦ Ideas%20for%20Life's gravatar image
showing 2 of 3 show all

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Share This Page:

Tags:

×88
×7

Asked: Jan 29 '13 at 14:14

Seen: 804 times

Last updated: Feb 06 '13 at 21:07