Do you mean immigrant as in in the US illegally or just someone who immigrated? Because I am fairly certain current visas and green cards are still valid. But hey, I wouldn't put anything past the state. I guess it's sort of a question with what kind of state power you are more comfortable with:
Forced association- massive illegal immigration
Or
Forced Disassociation- massive illegal immigrant deportation
"Do you mean immigrant as in in the US illegally or just someone who immigrated?" We're going around in circles here. The context is specifically Abrego Garcia who is here *legally*, according to the Trump administration in legal filings.
"Forced association- massive illegal immigration" --- Nothing about this is "forced association." Private property allows one to exclude whomever one wants from property. Public property is another issue, and while there can be a "tragedy of the commons" effect I think the problem with home-grown homelessness and mental health issues is far greater than anything created by illegal immigration.
"Forced Disassociation" -- Yes, this one is the problem. If I choose to employ or associate with someone who happens to be on the other side of an arbitrary line, and some Band of Thugs kidnaps that person, then the Thugs are the aggressors and in the wrong.
Lol, the comment about majority precludes mention about the exception case you cited. So, yeah, I get that that 1 guy is an exception.
Secondly, it is absolutely forced association strictly BECAUSE of the forced sharing of public property. That's kinda my whole point. I don't believe in public property but because it is forced upon me I have to care about my associations due to it.
It's easy to see the forced disassociation but not the forced association to you? Read my bio, I am an anarchist not some statist but I can also recognize inconsistencies in morals.
OK sure, but the problem is more the existence of public property producing the "tragedy of the commons" issue.... Everyone's experience with this is different, but from my point of view living in a major US urban area, the problems of homelessness are much more pronounced than that of immigration....
And I think there is data to bear out the conclusion that homeless people are far greater consumers of public services and "disrupters" of public life (in whatever context you're referring to be "forced association") than immigrants.
That's not my argument. I'm not a utilitarian. Both things are bad. I agree that public property is a problem. The point I am making is one of force. If I am to be forced to either interact or not interact with anyone by a government. I would rather not interact because I can live my life free of interlopers.
OK sure, but in the context of immigration, are you really saying that the existence of public commons constitutes being "forced" to interact with other people? Because I think that's quite a stretch...
You could in principle live in a tower with a helipad, or Iive your existence on a private luxury yacht, never having to step foot on public property or be within 100 m of anyone outside of a carefully cultivated bubble.... it's super expensive of course, but it's possible.
And then the other problem is, from a fundamental moral perspective, if you are being "forced" to interact with people in public, then by reciprocity, they are being "forced" to interact with you. Who gets to have the moral claim of grievance here?
Yes, by definition. I did not invite them nor did anyone else. Therefore they impose themseves upon all of us. Unless the property is private it is impossible to know who is invited and who isn't.
The people native to the place having others imposed upon them have the grievance. That thought experiment logic you wrote is akin to If you don't want a burglar in your house and he does want you to attack him who is at fault? Nonsense.
Illegal immigrants are at the very least uninvited by the warlords who impose their will upon the people.
As long as there are public borders the anarchist argument is kind of moot though.
