?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Border Control

I think this essay by crasch deserves to be read and linked to.

http://crasch.livejournal.com/460112.html

Comments

venusflytrap
Oct. 1st, 2006 02:25 pm (UTC)
i remain unimpressed as i would probably fall under the category of the immigrants.

really..if you dont like a dab of brown in a largely white community, it would be legal to deny me job/residence?
kmo
Oct. 1st, 2006 02:52 pm (UTC)
if you dont like a dab of brown in a largely white community,
In a system based on local self-determination, you can go to another, nearby, similar community. In a top-down system of nation-wide uniformity, if a largely white nation doesn't like a dab of brown, then you don't have that option.

If I start an intentional community on my property dedicated to a particular vision, should I not have the legal right to deny membership and residence to people who would make that community something other than what I had in mind?

If the majority in an exclusively white community, say the community defined by a ring of luxury condos surrounding a members-only golf course and country club, holds the vision of an exclusively white community, would you want to live there? Do you think that you have a right to impose yourself on that community? If so, what is the source of that right?

crasch makes the point that we recognize many borders and asks the question, "Is the national border the optimal place to screen those who seek entry?" I take you to be answering yes to that question. Have I mistaken your intent? If you do think we should exercise discrimination at the national border and nowhere else, why do you take that position?

venusflytrap
Oct. 1st, 2006 03:04 pm (UTC)
Re: if you dont like a dab of brown in a largely white community,
i think that you largely read me right. altho', i have always considered border control as something that keeps tracks of those who enter and leave rather than discrimination.

having said that 'border control' for a small, private space like an office or a home is entirely different from 'border control'(read as discrimination as i think crasch is suggesting)at national/state/community level. a town or a city isnt 'private'. not in a democracy. otoh, saudi arabia, for e.g, does impose severe restrictions at community levels...no taking photographs on the streets, not allowing women to drive, discouraging heathens. is that what crasch is suggesting and is that you are supporting?
kmo
Oct. 1st, 2006 03:34 pm (UTC)
Re: if you dont like a dab of brown in a largely white community,
Every country with the means to control its borders exercises discrimination at its borders. Try to enter Australia without a visa. Try to move there without speaking fluent English. Try moving there with a crimal record and they will exercise discrimination and deny you entry (or lock you up in an internment camp). If you use the word "discrimination" exclusively to refer to politically incorrect racial or gender-based judgements and actions, then you do not understand the meaning of the word. If you refuse to let your children associate with known criminals, then you are exercising your powers of discrimination, and rightly so.

a town or a city isnt 'private'. not in a democracy. otoh, saudi arabia, for e.g, does impose severe restrictions at community levels...no taking photographs on the streets, not allowing women to drive, discouraging heathens. is that what crasch is suggesting and is that you are supporting?

I support the right of a community to determine who can and cannot participate in that community and how. I support the right to choose, though I do not necessarily think that the specific choices made by certain communities like Saudi Arabia constitute wise or humane choices. I cannot speak for crasch. I use what influence I have to encourage wise and humane discrimination. In the case of Saudi Arabia, I have no influnce.

Notice that I have answered all of your questions. Would you do me the same courtesy?
kmo
Oct. 1st, 2006 04:02 pm (UTC)
Again...
crasch makes the point that we recognize many borders and asks the question, "Is the national border the optimal place to screen those who seek entry?" I take you to be answering yes to that question. Have I mistaken your intent? If you do think we should exercise discrimination at the national border and nowhere else, why do you take that position?
kmo
Oct. 1st, 2006 03:12 pm (UTC)
Intuition pump
If the majority in an exclusively Japanese community, say the community defined by a ring of luxury condos surrounding a members-only golf course and country club, holds the vision of an exclusively Japanese community, would you want to live there? Do you think that you have a right to impose yourself on that community? If so, what is the source of that right?

If the majority in an exclusively aboriginal community, say the community defined by a ancestral lands and ancestral blood-lines, holds the vision of an exclusively aboriginal community, would you want to live there? Do you think that you have a right to impose yourself on that community? If so, what is the source of that right?

If the majority in an exclusively Amish community, say the community defined by a collection of privately owned farms, holds the vision of an exclusively white community, would you want to live there? Do you think that you have a right to impose yourself on that community? If so, what is the source of that right?

If the majority in an exclusively Jewish community, say the community defined by a walled enclave in otherwise Palestinian territory, holds the vision of an exclusively Jewish community, would you want to live there? Do you think that you have a right to impose yourself on that community? If so, what is the source of that right?

If the majority in an exclusively Muslim community, say the community defined by a collection of high-rise tenement flats in a Paris suburb, holds the vision of an exclusively Muslim community, would you want to live there? Do you think that you have a right to impose yourself on that community? If so, what is the source of that right?
venusflytrap
Oct. 1st, 2006 03:20 pm (UTC)
Re: Intuition pump
if it is privately held and they sold it to me, i think the right is automatic, no?
venusflytrap
Oct. 1st, 2006 03:22 pm (UTC)
Re: Intuition pump
ermm..wait. i said 'sold', didnt i?

there is a little problem. going from 'border control', you have arrived at 'tenant preferances'. why? wasnt the original topic about controlling is appropriate for a particular community. how did we get from there to whether i would like to stay in a community that is 'different' from me?
kmo
Oct. 1st, 2006 03:52 pm (UTC)
Re: Intuition pump
We are disucssing the issues raised in crasch's essay, yes?

Crash wrote:
Advocates for immigration restrictions use the term "border control" to refer to restricting immigration across the U.S.'s national border. But the national border is just one of many borders. There are also state borders, and county borders, and city borders. If you own land, the borders of your property are defined by your property lines. Even your car and body have borders.

I'm less interested in why you would want to live in a community that is different from you than in the question of what right you think you have to impose your presence upon a community that would deny you admitance.

Have I answered your questions?
venusflytrap
Oct. 1st, 2006 04:05 pm (UTC)
Re: Intuition pump
a sense of entitlement, i suppose. mostly powered by the almighty dollar.

you ask..what right i have to impose my presence upon a community that would deny my admitance? i dont get it? i think it boils down to ownership rather than the feelings of the people around me. if a community denies me admitance, i CANT be there before i demand the RIGHT to 'impose' my presence, no? one cannot 'impose' oneself when one isnt 'present'...logically, that is...

no, you havent really answered my questions. your position isnt very clear. to me.
kmo
Oct. 1st, 2006 04:47 pm (UTC)
Re-focus
no, you havent really answered my questions. your position isnt very clear. to me.

Yes. That's the sense I get.

To refocus: Should every community within a nation state be governed according to rules established at the national level without regard for local differences or the preferences of local communities? I answer "No," to this question. crasch formulated the question in terms of who should be allowed to cross the border but then asked why focus only on the national border. My interest in this question does not relate exclusively or specifically to the question of immigration.

The United States constitution lays out a very few and well-defined roles for the Federal Government and explicitly reserves decision-making authority over all other matters to the states and to the people. Over the course of the 20th Century and two World Wars, the US Federal Government has increased the scope of its authority and systematically undermined the authority of the states to regulate themselves according to local conditions, concerns, and cultural considerations.

One symptom of the inflated role of the federal government at the expense of local communities appears when we talk about "border control." The discussion automatically gravitates to the national borders, but what about the rights of individuals and communities to make decissions about regions defined by other boarders? State borders, for instance, or the border of a gated community. If someone has successfully passed through the discrimination exercised at the national border, do they then enjoy carte blanche to cross any border within the Nation? Does no other entity other than the Federal government have any say about the integrity of its borders?

You seem to recognize the rights of private property. Let's take a moment and appreciate this point of aggreement between us. Now, where do we stand on the question of county borders? I live in a dry county. I may not, under penalty of law, make, buy or sell alcoholic beverages in Benton county? Does Benton county enjoy the right to prohibit an activity that Federal law allows? So far, it would seem so. Does Humbolt county enjoy the right to allow an activity that Federal law prohibits. So far, it would seem not. Why?

If you still do not understand my concerns and my interest in crasch's essay, please ask further questions. I make the judgement that you posed many of your questions so far with rhetorical intent. I would encourage you to ask genuine clarificatory questions. If you do, I will answer them, though I will be signing off for the remainder of the day now, so don't take my short term lack of response for anything other than my having moved away from my internet connection for the day.
kmo
Oct. 1st, 2006 03:43 pm (UTC)
Re: Intuition pump
If the previous owners sold you the property, and if they did not violate any previously aggreed-upon contracts, covenents, and restrictions in doing so, then the right is automatic, yes. I take you to be answering my question, "By what rigt do you impose yourself on that community?" with "By right of private property." In cases where communities recognize private property and the unrestricted use and disposal of private property, then your right remains undisputed. Not all communities recognize private property, and no nation or community that I know of allows for the unrestricted use and disposal of private property.

I visited an intentional organic farming community in Southwest Australia in which I would like to have lived. No member of that community could sell his portion unless all of the other members aggreed to the sale. If the owner sold to me over the objections of the rest of the community, then my right to live there remains in dispute.
venusflytrap
Oct. 1st, 2006 04:06 pm (UTC)
Re: Intuition pump
then your presence in the organic farming community would be illegal, wouldnt it? in that case, the right isnt automatic. obviously.

Latest Month

August 2017
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Ideacodes