Since Galambos defines property as an “… individual man’s life and all non-procreative derivatives of his life”: “…an individual who builds a road to access land, who cultivates a field to grow crops, or who constructs a mine to remove metal ore, is entitled to some property rights related to those modifications and improvements.” If an individual contributes in some way, why should he or she not accrue some benefit from that contribution?
How does the illegal immigration debacle square with Galambos and his Science of Volition?
I guess he would say that the first problem is the problem of state. Illegality is a condition of the state. If so, I do agree. Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, for the most part, are not working on Immigration reform with the best of intentions – there is no moral compass directing their decisions. It’s appalling.
Second, the illegal immigrant problem is a direct result of 9/11: our overwhelming concern over security from terrorism, and not a concern for illegal immigration, per se. If it wasn’t for 9/11 illegal immigration would not even be on the radar screen.
Fear reigns. Fear gives birth to hate and brings out the very worst in us: our prejudices, our racism.
The majority of illegal immigrants are not miscreants, but are people with the noblest of intentions and with the best of reasons who take great risk to get here (I realize these statements I cannot prove, it only comes from my gut, my humanity, and my empathy for the human condition). I know for a fact, from people I have met, that they were here illegally because what ever permission they had for being here in the first place had expired. Some did not simply have the wherewithal to take the necessary action to negate the illegality of their stay -- to “make it right.” No one with the knowledge and ability to help would help.
I realize, for those who live in a state in or near our southern border, South American immigration, legal or illegal, can be an existential problem; but, as Galambos I would assume would say: you are free to make the choice to leave or stay. One may not be free 100% of the time, but in this case one is certainly free to remove themselves from the situation if it’s that unsettling or annoying.
We need to work on the conditions in those countries that force people to take such risks, and compassionately enforce the immigration laws that are already applicable.
Enlighten me with a Galambosian solution.
