Reflections on immigration, in three parts
I.
When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God...
You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt..."
~God, in Exodus
Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts.
~God, in Malachi
Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.
~God, in Deuteronomy
For IF you truly amend your ways and your deeds,
IF you truly execute justice one with another,
if you do not oppress the sojourner,
the fatherless, or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place...
THEN, I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers forever.
~God, in Jeremiah
etc, etc, etc, etc, on and on and on, in the Bible.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/immigration
=======
II.
"What's the "illegal" part of being an illegal immigrant? Is it a crime to simply be an undocumented immigrant residing in the United States? What about sneaking across the border?
The confusion lies in the legal difference between improper entry and unlawful presence. Here's what you need to know:
Improper Entry Is a Crime [a misdemeanor, Dan]
To be clear, the most common crime associated with illegal immigration is likely improper entry.
Under federal criminal law, it is misdemeanor for an alien (i.e., a non-citizen) to:
- Enter or attempt to enter the United States at any time or place other than designated by immigration officers;
- Elude examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
- Attempt to enter or obtain entry to the United States by willfully concealing, falsifying, or misrepresenting material facts."
So, to be clear, crossing the border without proper permission is, in the US, a misdemeanor.
Misdemeanor is defined:
"A misdemeanor is considered a crime of low seriousness, and a felony, one of high seriousness. A principle of the rationale for the degree of punishment meted out is that the punishment should fit the crime."
A crime of low seriousness.
The punishment should fit the crime.
What has happened a great deal of the time when someone commits the "crime" of crossing an imaginary line illegally? A good deal of the time, an immigrant and/or his family is...
* In danger
* Being oppressed
* At risk of starving or just barely surviving
...when they leave their usually beloved homes, families and friends to come to the US to stop the threat. That is, they choose to engage in a victimless misdemeanor to avoid starving, death and oppression. Generally speaking, they don't want to leave their homes. They would much rather stay, but sometimes the threat is too great!
How serious is that "crime..."? Is it serious at all? Is it even rationally called a "crime..."?
Or is it only reasonable, moral and prudent?
What would you do if you were being oppressed or your family was starving where you were and there was not a good chance of changing it there... what would you do IF you knew you could escape that threat by committing a minor misdemeanor to save your/your family's life?
Of course, it is a moral and appropriate answer to violate that misdemeanor law to save lives!
Of course it is. If you disagree, then do us a favor: Go to a nation where you will be oppressed, threatened and starved and take the place of someone there, surrender your citizenship to them. THEN, tell us how you'd stay where your life/your children's lives were threatened.
Until then, I don't think anyone who says it is an actual "crime" to cross an imaginary line can be taken seriously.
Also, of course, any law that makes a crime of the victimless action of merely crossing an imaginary line to try to stay alive is an immoral, wrong and irrational (and, if you care about the Biblical examples easily found, unbiblical) law.
=======
III.
Unlawful Presence
"Some may assume that all immigrants who are in the United States without legal status must
have committed improper entry. This simply isn't the case. Many foreign
nationals legally enter the country on a valid work or travel visa, but
fail to exit before their visa expires for a variety of reasons.
But mere unlawful presence in the country is not a crime. It is a violation of federal immigration law to remain in the country without legal authorization, but this violation is punishable by civil penalties, not criminal."
I repeat: MERE UNLAWFUL PRESENCE IN THE COUNTRY IS NOT A CRIME.
Read it and understand.
And how often is it the case that we're talking about unlawful presence, as opposed to the misdemeanor of improper entry?
In fact, a 2006 study showed that roughly 45% of undocumented immigrants originally entered the US legally, but then remained in the country without authorization after their visas had expired.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/politics/undocumented-immigrants-not-necessarily-criminal/index.html
Nearly HALF of what are popularly called "illegal immigrants" are NOT "illegal." Overstaying a visa is a civil infraction, like parking in the wrong place, not even a misdemeanor.
And of course, it should not be a crime.
What sort of monsters criminalize people for a victimless crime of crossing an imaginary line in order to stay alive/not be oppressed?
The time has come to recognize that crossing a line to try to stay alive is in no reasonable way a crime. The time has come to stop calling it a crime.
In fact, the only moral crime is in criminalizing people who are merely trying to stay alive. This is something we all should be able to agree with and work towards.
By all means, let's keep it regulated, let's watch out for bad actors and those who would cause harm. I'm not saying let's have an entirely "open" border. BUT, the notion of criminalizing merely trying to stay safe and alive must end.
But mere unlawful presence in the country is not a crime. It is a violation of federal immigration law to remain in the country without legal authorization, but this violation is punishable by civil penalties, not criminal."
I repeat: MERE UNLAWFUL PRESENCE IN THE COUNTRY IS NOT A CRIME.
Read it and understand.
And how often is it the case that we're talking about unlawful presence, as opposed to the misdemeanor of improper entry?
In fact, a 2006 study showed that roughly 45% of undocumented immigrants originally entered the US legally, but then remained in the country without authorization after their visas had expired.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/politics/undocumented-immigrants-not-necessarily-criminal/index.html
Nearly HALF of what are popularly called "illegal immigrants" are NOT "illegal." Overstaying a visa is a civil infraction, like parking in the wrong place, not even a misdemeanor.
And of course, it should not be a crime.
What sort of monsters criminalize people for a victimless crime of crossing an imaginary line in order to stay alive/not be oppressed?
The time has come to recognize that crossing a line to try to stay alive is in no reasonable way a crime. The time has come to stop calling it a crime.
In fact, the only moral crime is in criminalizing people who are merely trying to stay alive. This is something we all should be able to agree with and work towards.
By all means, let's keep it regulated, let's watch out for bad actors and those who would cause harm. I'm not saying let's have an entirely "open" border. BUT, the notion of criminalizing merely trying to stay safe and alive must end.
127 comments:
Dan,
You are trying to diminish the seriousness of unlawful presence (ULP). But serious it is as the consequences are nowhere near as insignificant as you try to make the infraction. To wit:
"ULP is not a violation of a criminal statute, however the penalties involve removal and bars on readmission to the United States: 3-Year and 10-Year Bar."
(from: https://www.theblanchlawfirm.com/?practice-areas=unlawful-presence-remaining-in-the-united-states-without-authority)
And that's just the basic consequence. It can be permanent is some cases. You can quibble over whether or not such people are "illegal" immigrants, but they have certainly abused or neglected the terms of their lawful entry.
As to illegal entry, there's this:
"Entering the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, however, is a crime, as is eluding inspection or examination by immigration officers, or using false misrepresentation and concealment when entering the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Technically then, crossing the border alone is not a crime per se, but crossing the border unlawfully is."
(citation)
Thus, based on the above, those who cros the border unlawfully are indeed illegal immigrants at best, and invaders in fact.
As to "sojourners", it is well to keep in mind to whom and about whom those Biblical passages refer. It simply spoke to the treatment of travelers and foreigners who sought to reside in or pass through Israel. But none of the passages deal with legalities...that is, how the law of Israel affects the "sojourner". Basically stated, they were subject to the same laws as the Chosen People themselves. The fact that Israel at that time might not have had an immigration office or a border gate through which all must pass to gain legal entry is neither here nor there. They had their laws to which immigrants were obliged to adhere, and we have ours. And if I'm not mistaken, we are, at the very least, encouraged, if not mandated, to render unto Caesar and submit to the lawful governmental authorities.
Art, please don't enable this. It just distracts from the fact that he hasn't dealt with our meeting his demands from the last post. Be strong.
"The fact that Israel at that time might not have had an immigration office or a border gate through which all must pass to gain legal entry is neither here nor there."
The fact that, in Israel's theocracy and kingdom's supposedly listening to God's laws, God ALWAYS insisted upon treating immigrants with respect, NEVER says kick them out or make it illegal is irrelevant? Perhaps, IF you were not one to cite OT rules in trying to push for laws in our nation.
But you are one who does that. So, yes, it is pertinent to you, in that you appear prepared to disregard the words from God in the Bible as it relates to immigration, at the same time you cite a couple of OT rules as reasons to create rules about gay folk.
So, are you saying that you can at least agree that the ~half of immigrants who are undocumented who did not commit a misdemeanor by one time crossing a border, but who merely overstayed their visas... that the term "illegal immigrant" is entirely mistaken for at least them?
Also, I'm willing to bet that you have, at one time or another, committed a misdemeanor: You've driven recklessly, trespassed, smoked a joint, been publicly drunk...? Yes?
If so, by your measure, that makes you an "illegal citizen," is that fair?
Craig asked an off topic question in the last post which I'm not responding to, there, as it is off topic. But it is on topic here, so, from Craig...
You do realize that your list of misdemeanors only does one of two things.
1. It points out that misdemeanors are not the minor offenses you try to claim they are.
2. It provides an argument to legalize everything else on your list.
"The List" in question was a list of misdemeanors, which includes prostitution, petty theft, reckless driving, smoking marijuana, etc.
In our legal system, these actions have been designated misdemeanors, which are, by definition, minor/less serious behaviors or "crimes." By definition.
I am not, however, arguing that these are not behaviors that are rightly regulated. Some of these are actual dangers to other people or cause harm. Petty theft IS a harm to others, even if the theft is petty. Reckless driving IS a potential harm to others. I am not arguing that we ought not keep them as crimes, even as misdemeanors.
However, other behaviors that are criminalized that don't cause harm to others, I do not think they should be criminalized. Prostitution, smoking weed and crossing an imaginary line to escape to a safer, better life are ridiculous laws - even misdemeanors - and indeed, they should be decriminalized.
And of all those misdemeanors, the one which is least "criminal" and least fitting in the list of even misdemeanors is the mere seeking of safety/escape from starvation/oppression.
My family is here in the US because we broke laws (elsewhere) to escape being killed and tortured by the Church. It is patently ridiculous and an offense to morality to criminalize seeking safety.
~Dan
"crossing an imaginary line to escape to a safer, better life are ridiculous laws"
Whether or not one is escaping mortal danger can be established legally...in court perhaps. To presume that you or anyone you know is capable of making such determinations to the extent that you can claim justification in skirting the law is an entirely different matter, but one I would not bet a dime of your money on being the least bit possible, especially given your support for the communist Sandinistas.
In any case, even a justified breaking of the law needs to go through the legal system to establish that it is actually justified.
More importantly, that line isn't "imaginary". It is legally established and acknowledge internationally. You don't get to dismiss it as imaginary when it suits you to do so, unless of course you're open to people squating on your personal property without your knowledge or consent. The property you paid for (assuming you actually own property) is itself bordered by an imaginary line based on your ludicrous reasoning.
As to that, your reasoning cannot impose any limitations whatsoever on how many people "flee" across our borders and by what excuse. As you aren't willing to expend any effort to improve your income and wealth in your equally ludicrous "simple living" fantasy, it is inane to insist that your position is justifiable, as it necessarily imposes upon others without their consent. There's only so much our economy can weather, particularly given the numbers of buffoons like yourself who thinks money grows on trees and those who busted their asses to produce must then turn over the fruits of their labors to satisfy your self-pleasing notions of what our nation should be...while you support absolutely nothing that leads to actually improving things in those nations that compel others to flee.
To clarify, as a re-reading of my last compels me to do so, my referencing your "simple living" absurdity was meant to reassert that increasing your wealth/income would be a far more honest way of promoting your socialist progressive taxation-type of mindset. You would then be modeling what you demand of those who do have higher incomes/levels of wealth. Without doing so, you're a fraud.
Craig,
While I sympathize with your position with regards enabling Dan's distraction, it does provide ready evidence of new falsehoods that he is willing to throw out in his efforts to support his position, beginning with:
"The fact that, in Israel's theocracy and kingdom's supposedly listening to God's laws, God ALWAYS insisted upon treating immigrants with respect, NEVER says kick them out or make it illegal is irrelevant? Perhaps, IF you were not one to cite OT rules in trying to push for laws in our nation.
But you are one who does that. So, yes, it is pertinent to you, in that you appear prepared to disregard the words from God in the Bible as it relates to immigration, at the same time you cite a couple of OT rules as reasons to create rules about gay folk."
Just the above quote contains falsehoods that are easily debunked. Let's begin:
"The fact that, in Israel's theocracy and kingdom's supposedly listening to God's laws, God ALWAYS insisted upon treating immigrants with respect, NEVER says kick them out or make it illegal is irrelevant?"
That's clearly not what I said. What I said was that the fact that they likely had no immigration department or border gate...as we have in our country...is irrelevant to the fact that we do indeed have those things now. Yet at the same time, you'd be more than a little hard-pressed to support the notion that "treating immigrants with respect" equates to allowing them to ignore laws that WERE in effect at the time. Indeed, those laws were established to prohibit the Chosen People from engaging in the very behaviors for which God cast them out before the nations of Israel. Do you honestly think He'd allow immigrants to engage in those behaviors as they live among the Israelites without them being cast out? And are you so insipid as to compare holding people accountable for infractions of any kind with treating people disrespectfully? And do you think that if any of these immigrants had a defiling skin disease or a discharge of any kind, or who is ceremonially unclean because of a dead body, would not be cast out from among the Israelites? Would that be disrespectful? And gee...how would they negotiate that "imaginary line" in doing so? God wasn't thinking about that, I guess.
"Perhaps, IF you were not one to cite OT rules in trying to push for laws in our nation.
But you are one who does that."
Now you are obliged to find any comment I've ever made anywhere in which I cited ANY Scripture in pushing legislation on any issue. I'll wait here while you NEVER even attempt to back this up.
The only reason I have ever cited Scripture with regard to any issue being discussed is to point to what Scripture actually says with regards the issue at hand, especially to show why your interpretation and position is heretical eisegesis. Scripture isn't needed to support denying the unjustified demand for special rights by homosexuals. But hey...God outlawed sexual immorality in the same OT books from which you pulled your "sojourner" passages. As such, I adhere to both, and in far more accurate a manner, than you do either. I have no problems with immigrants. I have problems with those who skirt our laws, customs and practices...and greater problems with those who enable them in doing so.
Immigration laws and regulations protect the people of THIS nation. Nothing about our laws, our Constitution or anything else puts those of other nations above the interests of our own population. There's nothing that justifies doing so. You deny this by pretending our border is only imaginary so that you can ignore the violation of those borders in your twisted hope to appear "Christian".
continuing...
"So, are you saying that you can at least agree that the ~half of immigrants who are undocumented who did not commit a misdemeanor by one time crossing a border, but who merely overstayed their visas... that the term "illegal immigrant" is entirely mistaken for at least them?"
No, because the term is appropriate even if it is not technically applicable to that other group who are ULP. Such people are in breech of a legal agreement, even if Congress has deemed that the infraction is not worthy of the term "criminal offense". Your visa runs out, you're supposed to leave or at least seek an extension before it expires. To let it run out, or to acknowledge that it has and hope that no one notices is criminal in attitude. One purposely chooses to remain without benefit of legal justification. At the very least, it's freaking lying...which I know you don't see as problematic unless it's a GOP politician appearing to do it.
"If so, by your measure, that makes you an "illegal citizen," is that fair?"
No, but it is incredibly stupid...because even if I commit a felony, I'm still an actual citizen of this country. But the immigrant who sneaks in or overstays a visa is here illegally. That's true even if ULP isn't a crime. The person is still here illegally because his right to be here, via his visa, expired. He, like the one who sneaked in, has no legal right to be here. THAT'S what makes him an "illegal" immigrant.
Our nation is not protected by keeping out threatened people. We are only diminished as a nation when we act in such cowardly and selfish behavior.
Dan
Art, I understand. But refuse to enable this behavior. If I was I'd have to not that the very title of this post suggests a false premise.
Marshall, for something to be "criminal in attitude," it would seem to be necessary for there to be a crime. There is no crime. To call such people "illegal" or "criminal" speaks to the pettiness of the attacker, not any attitude of the immigrant.
Dan
Here is an analogy of two misdemeanors...
There is a woman being pursued by a rapist. She has escaped his clutches, jumped into a car and she's speeding away from this attacker. She's driving recklessly in her attempt to escape. She doesn't have a license and she's running red lights and stop signs and swerving around corners. Clearly, she's committed the misdemeanor crime of reckless driving.
She makes it to safety to the police who promptly charge her for reckless driving. She says, "but I was escaping a threat on my life!" The police sympathize, but tell her that there is a right way to escape. She should have taken her time and escaped in a legal manner. As it is, she is just a criminal herself.
Do you recognize what an offense to morality and reason this is?
Dan
I feel compelled to point out that it seems strange that you can identify something as an offense to morality, when you can't even define morality.
Morality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong and good and bad.
Actually, it's not that difficult to define morality. Not sure why you'd think I couldn't do it.
Dan
"Actually, it's not that difficult to define morality. Not sure why you'd think I couldn't do it."
Because you fail so routinely to recognize immoral behavior as immoral, thus, your definition is purposely ambiguous and therefore meaningless to the charge that you can't define it.
As to "criminal in attitude", that only requires that one willfully ignore known laws, policies, convention and/or standards of behavior. Thus,
"To call such people "illegal" or "criminal" speaks to the pettiness of the attacker, not any attitude of the immigrant."
...is nonsensical as those terms apply to those people who willfully ignore known laws, policies, convention and/or standards of behavior. You again play games with words, falling back on the fact that a particular behavior might not be illegal in the sense of breaking any law. As I said, the fact that legal presence in this country by those not citizens is a matter of legal permission, without which one is illegally present and thus illegal.
"Pettiness" is present in the ongoing semantic games you play to rationalize allowing non-citizens to ignore our laws.
"Do you recognize what an offense to morality and reason this is?"
The offense to morality and reason is this latest lame attempt to craft a illustrative analogy...a skill at which history shows you are greatly lacking. No cop would focus on the reckless driving of a victim of assault once the truth of the situation is known. Indeed, I would wager most cops would encourage just the action the woman in your little story took...get away in whatever way you can in order to protect your person/life. Her traffic infractions attract the attention of the very people tasked with serving and protecting.
But imagine if she did all her reckless driving while purposely avoiding attracting the attention of law enforcement. What would be the point? Does she believe the cops would not take her story seriously? That they would return her to her attacker? Why would they unless her story was untrue or not proven to be so? That is, without the story being in some way compelling to them, they would not see a need to offer assistance. She is not a criminal for merely running for her life. But purposely avoiding the cops in doing so suggests she might be.
It is the same with your allegedly oppressed illegals that you harbor. Are our immigration officials to simply take them at their word and let them remain in the country to drain our resources? And as you say they have no desire to leave their homes except to protect their lives, what benefit to our nation and its citizens is there in absorbing even more people who won't assimilate because they have no intrinsic desire to be here in the first place?
The real problem is that you make no effort to filter out those who are truly in need versus those who simply want to improve their lives. Those are two different issues and each must be dealt with individually and on a case by case basis. That can't be done if they are just allowed to enter the country or overstay their visas and then be harbored by scofflaws such as yourself and your merry band of socialist pretend Christians.
No nation can survive or thrive with unlimited access to anyone who wants to enter under any pretense that we aren't allowed to verify for truthfulness, and with no concern whatsoever for how it impacts our own. As with all leftist notions, this one rejects the reasonable consideration of consequences for the sake of self-aggrandizement.
Because you've frequently and repeatedly asserted that morality is subjective.
There is a difference between being able to define morality and in saying, "I have authoritative proof of morality and we can objectively know that I am right."
You have no proof that morality is objectively knowable.
Not that this has anything to do with this topic.
The point is, I DO believe in morality and think most people can agree that to criminalize merely trying to survive (even if it means committing a misdemeanor of crossing a human-created line in the "wrong" way or without the "proper" permissions) is wrong.
To the point of this post: Are you able to agree that IF you had a loved one in a nation where their children were under threat of oppression, rape, starvation or murder, and that person knew that it was only a matter of time until one of these awful things would occur to him, to his children... and then he applied to come to the US and was told he could do so, legally! He just had to get in line, prove his problems were real and imminent, jump through a bunch of hoops and then, maybe in five years, he could legally immigrate to the US!
He told you this was the case. OR, he also tells you that he could sneak into the US and get his family to safety, NOW. Would you call that loved one an illegal immigrant? Would you tell him he was wrong?
Do you not recognize the immorality of such a response?
~Dan
"The point is, I DO believe in morality and think most people can agree that to criminalize merely trying to survive...is wrong."
First of all, you do NOT believe in morality, but only your own definition of what is or isn't moral. You reject the clear and unambiguous Biblical teaching with regard to sexual immorality, for example.
Secondly, it isn't fleeing for one's life that is "criminalized", but the illegal entry and existence of non-citizens in this country.
"Would you call that loved one an illegal immigrant? Would you tell him he was wrong?"
If it was a "loved one", whatever you mean by that loaded term, I would sponsor him and his family and work to acquire for him legal status. Sponsoring is a legal procedure that can allow one to avoid harboring those who broke our laws. (I don't know if an organization, such as a religious congregation, can be a sponsor and corporately support such people financially. If such an avenue exists, then the "sojourner" is here legally. See how this works?)
Marshall...
No cop would focus on the reckless driving of a victim of assault once the truth of the situation is known. Indeed, I would wager most cops would encourage just the action the woman in your little story took
So, you DO understand the analogy. Good. No moral person would discourage her activity. Seeking safety is a reasonable thing, even if you have to commit a minor misdemeanor to do it. Indeed, a law that would interfere with seeking safety would be an immoral law.
Agreed?
Are our immigration officials to simply take them at their word and let them remain in the country to drain our resources? And as you say they have no desire to leave their homes except to protect their lives, what benefit to our nation and its citizens is there in absorbing even more people who won't assimilate because they have no intrinsic desire to be here in the first place?
Marshall, your comments display a profound ignorance of reality.
1. Immigrants are a boon to our economy, not a drain on our resources. Check the facts.
2. Immigrants DO assimilate, eventually, just as they always have done. I'm sure my first generation Trabues did not speak English right away. Now we do. Check the facts. Be rational.
The real problem is that you make no effort to filter out those who are truly in need versus those who simply want to improve their lives.
And you base this on what? Where have I ever suggested not having any filter to strain out the violent and dangerous?
Fun fact: I have not. Ever. That would be stupid and I'm not stupid.
Do you recognize that I've never suggested this?
What I DID suggest was decriminalizing the mere act of seeking a better life. Regulate it, regulate entry, sure, sure. But from a place of decriminalized immigration.
Because criminalizing the mere seeking of a better life is the true crime, the true moral outrage. That is my point.
Dan
"Would you call that loved one an illegal immigrant? Would you tell him he was wrong?"
If it was a "loved one", whatever you mean by that loaded term, I would sponsor him and his family and work to acquire for him legal status.
I'm glad your friend in this imaginary situation has that privilege. Now expand your thinking to those who don't have that privilege.
Would you call someone who commits a misdemeanor to simply try to save his family an "illegal immigrant?" Would you call for their arrest and deportation?
If you answer yes, do you recognize how monstrous that makes you appear?
There are people for whom, to return to their country is to return to be murdered.
Do you really support sending them back?
Think morally. Think rationally.
~Dan
Marshall...
First of all, you do NOT believe in morality, but only your own definition of what is or isn't moral. You reject the clear and unambiguous Biblical teaching with regard to sexual immorality, for example.
Marshall, this is an off topic ad hom attack. Please keep on topic. And remember, that I disagree with you (or you with me) about various notions on morality and certain behaviors does not mean I don't believe in morality. Disagreeing with Marshall is not the same as disagreeing with God or with morality.
Right?
Dan
"Agreed?"
No, because you're conflating the law with the alleged flight from harm. The law isn't immoral in any way simply because it impedes the ability of such people to escape their oppressors. They're still to operate according to the laws of the land to which they flee. "I'm oppressed" is a convenient excuse for any who wish to skirt the law and that's what you're enabling. Again, I don't trust that you or anyone you know is qualified to accurately identify legitimate cases of those who use this rationalization. There's a level of subjectivity involved as well as the potential that we will reach our limit of ability to provide assistance, if we haven't reached that already. You would insist that you and yours are the righteous arbiters of what constitutes legitimate cases. You're not. You're scofflaws for harboring those who are here without legal permission.
No law is immoral because it is inconvenient for a few.
"1. Immigrants are a boon to our economy, not a drain on our resources. Check the facts."
Your "facts" are slanted to support your anti-immigration law position. I prefer objective considerations of the reality.
"2. Immigrants DO assimilate, eventually, just as they always have done. I'm sure my first generation Trabues did not speak English right away. Now we do. Check the facts. Be rational."
Immigrants who assimilate are those who desire to be here because they believe America is the land of opportunity and liberty. Their assimilation is indicated in their efforts to actually do so...by learning the language, obeying the laws and becoming citizens according to those laws. Entire neighborhoods are often no more than those who came here and resist and reject our culture in favor of their own. This is particularly true with muslims, but is also true of other nationalities, such as Hispanics. When some of them drive around with flags of their country of origin flying from their cars, some believing California, Texas and other states be returned to them...that's not assimilation.
Also, those who seek to impose on this nation customs and political philosophies in conflict with our Constitution are not assimilating, either. I would imagine that this type of behavior would not be trumpeted by those seeking entry, but only acted upon once enabling by people like you is assured.
"And you base this on what? Where have I ever suggested not having any filter to strain out the violent and dangerous?
Fun fact: I have not. Ever. That would be stupid and I'm not stupid."
I'm not going to call this a lie, but it is false nonetheless. I think you are indeed quite stupid in a variety of ways. But my comment is based on the opinion, supported by our years of discourse, that you aren't capable of filtering accurately.
"What I DID suggest was decriminalizing the mere act of seeking a better life. Regulate it, regulate entry, sure, sure. But from a place of decriminalized immigration."
We already have that. It's at the border gate primarily and through other government departments. "Decriminalized" immigration is immigration through legal processes.
continuing...
They're still to operate according to the laws of the land to which they flee. "I'm oppressed" is a convenient excuse for any who wish to skirt the law and that's what you're enabling.
Well, Damn, Marshall. I just don't see how we can get past this. You seem to me to be advocating a stupid, selfish and cowardly version of evil and you, somehow, think I'm advocating bad policy or something.
I disagree strongly with you and think you are on the wrong side of moral and rational history.
Good luck. May you never be in a nation where you're oppressed and need to seek refuge somewhere, as my ancestors once did in this great land of ours.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Indeed.
Save your "continuing..." if you wish. I've heard all I care to hear from you.
Lord have mercy.
~Dan
"Would you call someone who commits a misdemeanor to simply try to save his family an "illegal immigrant?" "
If they entered without going through the proper processes, or remained after the expiration of their visa...absolutely, because that's what they would be. The term would be appropriate because it would be accurate. The question is whether or not their illegal behavior is justified and therefore unworthy of prosecution.
"Would you call for their arrest and deportation?"
I would call for their detention until it is established that they have a legitimate claim for sanctuary. I would call for the arrest of those who make a practice of harboring such people as if they had any legal authority to do so.
"If you answer yes, do you recognize how monstrous that makes you appear?"
No, but I do recognize how you're once again demonizing me for respecting the rule of law. It is impossible to insure against the potential for harm to some who seek sanctuary but are denied it for failure to establish that they are deserving of it. That doesn't make the law or those determined to see it followed monstrous in any way. It makes you an ass for suggesting either is monstrous.
You want me to think morally and rationally. The reality is you simply want me to agree that what you're doing is moral and rational and that my position isn't. It the way with leftists, and you in particular, that anyone who does not agree with you is immoral, irrational or delusional. Again, it makes you an ass.
"Disagreeing with Marshall is not the same as disagreeing with God or with morality."
When Marshall's position is based on God's clear and unambiguous commands, then disagreeing with Marshall can indeed be disagreeing with God. On the subject of sexual morality, that is clearly the case. There is no clear and unambiguous Scripture that even hints that I am mistaken. None that you've ever presented, nor have you presented any argument directly based on any actual verse or passage...just your eisegesis.
"You seem to me to be advocating a stupid, selfish and cowardly version of evil and you, somehow, think I'm advocating bad policy or something."
Typical. Attack when you are unable to defend your position against logic and actual reason. The fact is that you ARE advocating bad policy. You're advocating people deciding which laws to ignore and expect that the nation rest assured that you're capable of doing so intelligently. Sorry if I don't have that confidence in you or anyone like you. It's not my fault that you've never done anything to instill such confidence.
So please, by all means, explain to me what is stupid or selfish or cowardly...or EVIL!!!!!! in obeying the law? By your reasoning, there is no end or limit to who enters this nation, on what terms and on whose dime. ANYONE can enter and do what they want as long as they get past YOUR notion of what qualifies their entry...if they can convince YOU that they are victims in need of refuge. It's bullshit and totally contradictory to the notion that "we can't be the world's policeman" by insisting we can be the world's savior nonetheless as long was we do it your way. You don't consider the ramifications, because you don't give a flying rat's ass about the ramifications so long as you can portray yourself as a champion of the downtrodden, making the rest of the nation victims of your "largess".
Not an attack, a description of how it seems to me.
1. I think it is a great wrong to prevent people from escaping to safety, or to place roadblocks in their way. A great wrong/evil/bad/awful. That's my opinion.
Just like you probably think it is a great wrong for two guys to commit to one another in a loving marriage arrangement.
The difference is that there is a great potential for danger and harm to many people with my concern, whereas, with your concern, you don't like the idea of two guys being married.
Hardly comparable concerns.
2. To engage in this great wrong because you fear that, by letting people into a safe situation, you MIGHT SOMETIMES PERHAPS be letting in bad guys is cowardly and selfish. It is putting your fears of what MIGHT happen in some tiny percentage of the time to what is actually happening on a regular basis to thousands and thousands of people.
Why would that not be considered cowardly and selfish?
Don't bother answering, I'm just pointing out that this is not an attack, it is a concern.
Explain to you that obeying an immoral law that causes demonstrable harm to others is a bad idea? I don't need to. You presumably would agree that the German people shouldn't have obeyed the Nazis in their bad laws or that anti-slavery people shouldn't have gone along with legal slavery (I HOPE you agree).
Just because something is a law does not make it moral. You know this and I don't need to explain it to you.
No need to respond. I've heard too much from you. I'm sorry you hold those positions. Again, may you never need refugee sort of help. Karma's a bitch.
~Dan
It seems like your ultimate question is, "Can you refer to someone who breaks the law as a "lawbreaker"?". Clearly there is nothing wrong with this.
Of course the fundamental flaw in this entire post is your fallacious assumption that "seeking safety", is in any way criminalized. Your failure to demonstrate the underlying premise, removes your entire post from the realm of fact, to the realm of opinion.
Fallacious? I don't think so. Perhaps you're just not understanding (although, if you'd answer the earlier question, you'd be able to figure it out).
If someone is in a dangerous situation, they can follow proper legal procedure and maybe - maybe! - get refugee status in several years. This is not a solution in cases of imminent threats.
Thus, legal solutions being exhausted, some will choose to do something that works to get them to safety, even if doing that means committing a misdemeanor.
In that sense, taking steps towards safety is criminalized. But you understand that, don't you?
Dan
"You seem to me to be advocating a stupid, selfish and cowardly version of evil..."
If that's not an "attack", I don't know what is. What graceful Christian infers such a thing from someone who simply notes the flaws in your behaviors?
"1. I think it is a great wrong to prevent people from escaping to safety, or to place roadblocks in their way. A great wrong/evil/bad/awful. That's my opinion."
Your opinion is stupid and deceitful for suggesting that laws that prevent harm to us are "great wrong/evil/bad/awful" things because they might impede the ability of others fleeing harm from elsewhere...as if to suggest they are meant to do so.
"Just like you probably think it is a great wrong for two guys to commit to one another in a loving marriage arrangement."
I don't "think" it's a great wrong. It IS a great moral wrong since God has affirmed that homosexual behavior is an abomination and therefore prohibited behavior so bad it is worthy of death (that we don't put them to death for doing so doesn't mitigate the fact that the behavior is nonetheless worthy of that sentence, per God Himself).
"The difference is that there is a great potential for danger and harm to many people with my concern, whereas, with your concern, you don't like the idea of two guys being married."
First off, it goes far beyond any personal distaste I might have for the notion of SSM. But go ahead with the deceitful implication that it's all there is to it. Your dishonesty isn't even a question in my mind at this point.
But you also assume I have no concern for the oppressed of the world. The most efficient way to deal with it is to to kill the oppressors, either directly or by supplying the oppressed with the means to do so themselves. But to you that would imply "returning evil for evil", though that too is untrue. Then, of course, encouraging the nation of the oppressed adopt our form of government so that liberty and opportunity expands there as it did here. THAT would be truly helping the oppressed WITHOUT harming our own in the process.
continuing...
"2. To engage in this great wrong because you fear that, by letting people into a safe situation, you MIGHT SOMETIMES PERHAPS be letting in bad guys is cowardly and selfish."
Nonsense. It is rational and logical, especially given the responsibility of our government to protect our own first and foremost. If our border is truly "imaginary" as you insist it is, then to ignore it's presence necessarily opens us up to an even greater influx of bad actors then there already is. By refusing to insist that outsiders respect those borders, how can you possibly deny entry to bad actors and other, less than beneficial immigrants? You can't. But you don't care because you expect your fellow citizens to absorb the costs and consequences of such an inane and idiotic philosophy...all to posture yourself as "holier than" the rest of us who actually employ common sense with relation to our borders and the safety of our fellow citizens.
"It is putting your fears of what MIGHT happen in some tiny percentage of the time to what is actually happening on a regular basis to thousands and thousands of people."
Not at all. It's looking at the situation rationally according to the stark realities of it all and acting accordingly. From the perspective of both our government and ourselves, no one is more important than our own that we should put our own at risk, to ANY degree, in order to market ourselves as caring people. Caring doesn't require stupidity, and once again, I have zero confidence that you, or anyone in your "tribe" possesses enough discretion to safely assume responsibility for illegal immigrants and their tales of woe. That is, unless you're assuming TOTAL responsibility for their presence in the country might cause, both financially and criminally. That still leaves the issue of the impact on others that cannot be erased. So no, neither cowardly or selfish. It's far more of both for you as you do nothing for all those who aren't able or willing to try to escape their oppression while pretending you care.
"Just because something is a law does not make it moral. You know this and I don't need to explain it to you."
What you need to explain is how our immigration laws are immoral simply because some people at risk are unable to enter without going through legal procedures. No law covers every possibility. That doesn't make it immoral, and daring to draw a parallel between our immigration procedures and WWII era Nazi policies or slavery laws 200 years ago is rank bullshit and dishonest for attempting to do so.
You've heard too much from me? You've heard the truth, about our laws, and about your fallacious and lawbreaking behaviors and philosophies. Like all others who insist on doing wrong, you don't like light shining on it.
Just happened upon this and thought it relevant. Those evil, selfish and cowardly Mexicans!!!
given the responsibility of our government to protect our own first and foremost.
Look, you're welcome to your opinions, no matter how much I disagree with them. But this is the definition of selfish and I can't go there. You can do as you wish.
Selfish: concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
I will clarify that it's nationally selfish, rather than personally. Still, it fits the definition and I don't believe that is in our ideals.
I prefer, "Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses..."
Thank you for your opinions. I've heard enough. We disagree.
Dan
you need to explain is how our immigration laws are immoral simply because some people at risk are unable to enter without going through legal procedures.
If you can read your own summation and not understand why it is immoral, what can I add that will make you understand?
Perhaps you don't understand: There are those at risk who are unable to get into our nation by "legal" or approved means.
Do you understand that this is reality?
~Dan
"Look, you're welcome to your opinions, no matter how much I disagree with them. But this is the definition of selfish and I can't go there."
Thank you so very much for posting the definition of selfish that shows you misapplied the word. As I said, it's the government's responsibility to protect the citizens of this country...to put the citizens welfare before the welfare of those who are NOT citizens. That FACT has absolutely nothing to do with how I might personally feel about it. It's true regardless of whether or not I agree with it. By your "reasoning" (I use the term loosely now at all times when referring to your intellectual ability), your family would be selfish to expect that your primary responsibility as a husband and father is to your wife and children (after God, assuming you truly believe He exists). Are they selfish for assuming that? Only a leftist seeking to defend illegal behavior would say so.
"I prefer, "Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses...""
Given your penchant for eisegesis, you choose to believe there are no limitations on that welcome. Only a leftist trying to defend illegal behavior would think so. The reality is that there is no implication in that poem suggesting anything goes, that those huddled masses can just walk in and set up shop, when the reality is that there was NEVER that attitude with regard to immigration. Read the quotes of our founders in this piece by Michelle Malkin and then try to run that crap about our ideals, that is no more than your personal preference without regard to actual American values.
Yeah. We disagree, as we most often will I fear. But you still cannot defend your positions because they are based on what you charge the basis of my positions are: whimsy and hunches...not fact and reality.
"Perhaps you don't understand: There are those at risk who are unable to get into our nation by "legal" or approved means"
Yeah. I get that. That's not the question I asked. I asked why that inability makes our laws immoral? "Immoral" is breaking the law, not defending it or expecting that it be obeyed. With your twisted reasoning, you're a hypocrite if you have doors on your house. There are likely millions of people at risk for some kind or level of harm at any given moment all over the world. Why don't you go where the risk is to protect them and let the rest of us deal with those who will submit themselves to our laws. All you're doing is enabling both those who break our laws and those from whom they run...just so you can posture.
While this article is about those who support Trump, perhaps this might explain some things in regards to those who support criminalizing immigration...
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/08/a-psychological-analysis-of-trump-supporters-has-uncovered-5-key-traits-about-them/
~Dan
With your twisted reasoning, you're a hypocrite if you have doors on your house.
If someone is breaking into a house, they do so to steal or otherwise cause harm.
When someone crosses an imaginary line from one nation to another nation to escape violence or starvation, they do so AVOID harm.
Analogy fail.
Although it does help to prove and strengthen my point, so thanks for that.
~Dan
Thanks for the RawStory claptrap. It is no more than a leftist opinion weakly disguised as "psychological analysis". It's the same liberal projection we've been hearing for years. Nothing new nor nothing true.
"If someone is breaking into a house, they do so to steal or otherwise cause harm."
There you go projecting again. Unlike you, I seek to deal in apples-to-apples comparisons, as doing so is more honest and truthful. As such, I'm not talking about thieves here. I'm talking about imaginary borders such as that which forms the perimeter of your property and living space. Your locked doors are your very own border gates, and you are the border patrol. No one enters without your permission and on your terms. So that's OK for you, but the very same laws for the nation are immoral in your wacky leftist eyes.
"Analogy fail."
Not hardly. Not only is my analogy perfect and a great example for you to copy and save as a reference in order to craft intelligent analogies in the future, it doesn't just weaken and disprove your point...but rather, it totally destroys it as the irrational nonsense it is.
The difference, one anyway, is that I own my housing space, whereas The Nation is our Commonwealth, not belonging to anyone.
Your analogy continues to fail.
The difference is Harm. No one is harmed and some are helped by immigration. Our first rule of morality is, Do No Harm.
Don't endorse harm, Marshall.
Dan
"The difference, one anyway, is that I own my housing space, whereas The Nation is our Commonwealth, not belonging to anyone."
You fail to understand the concept of "sovereignty" with regard to nation states. The United States of America is the home of the American people. It is "owned" by the American people in the sense that no other foreign nations or peoples has a claim to it without the permission of the American people through our governmental departments tasked with regulating immigration.
What's more, "ownership" is as "imaginary" as are border lines. That is to say, that you can't make your "ownership" any more worthy of respect by others simply because of any piece of paper that does no more than simply state that a plot of land or structure belongs to you. How else than by pieces of paper, treaties, agreements between people and respect for boundaries do we exist as a civilized society?
As to harm, my analogy does not ignore the possibility that those who are barred entry into your home or onto your property might also be fleeing harm. So again, my analogy is spot on, even if not perfect (as no analogy is...otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy but rather another example of the same point).
There is harm by allowing people to ignore or choose to disobey immigration laws and regulations. This harm is well documented. You don't care about that harm because you choose to favor resolving harm as you see fit. I choose to resolve harm by employing strategies that actually reduce it substantially, if not totally eliminate it, such as by killing or permanently driving out oppressors who compel people to ignore our laws knowing that chumps like you exist to enable them. You do nothing to deal with the source of the harm thereby leaving millions to continue suffering from it. Instead, you burden your fellow citizens by enabling those who won't wait their turn in the pathway to citizenship or temporary visas that already exists. So you endorse harm far more than I do. You just assume the authority to dictate who endures it.
So, yes, the person fleeing harm who comes to my house SHOULD come into my house. I would encourage it. Hell, I've done it. More than once. Of course, we should protect people from harm!
"What you did NOT do for the least of these, you did not do for me. Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels!" ~Jesus
It really is all about harm. If we have the power to stop harm by merely letting people come here and make a home here, why wouldn't we? What sort of monsters would we be to refuse them access?
What the hell would Jesus do?
Well, we know the answer to that. The question is, what will his followers do?
Depart from me, Marshall. I'm sickened by that attitude. I pray that your heart will be softened, your eyes opened and you repent.
~Dan
Not only would I encourage people to come into my house if they were fleeing harm... if they were fleeing harm and I wasn't home and they broke in to reach safety, I would applaud them. Way to go! Of course, break in, if you need to to save your life, to save your child's life.
Wait. Are you saying that if someone came to your house fleeing danger, you would NOT let them in? Are you saying that if someone broke in while you were gone to reach safety, you would prosecute them as "illegal escapers-from-harm.."?!
Say it isn't so.
Truly, I hope that isn't what you're saying, but you tell me. It SEEMS like that is exactly what you're advocating.
It's a great analogy for showing the moral and rational flaws in your argument. Thanks, Marshall. I hope maybe this analogy of yours will open your eyes.
~Dan
There is harm by allowing people to ignore or choose to disobey immigration laws and regulations. This harm is well documented.
I doubt seriously you can support this claim. I would guess that you're saying that if there are more people, then you fear that there won't be enough jobs. But that's not an actual harm causation by immigration.
Consider: If conservatives decided to have a push for having more babies to create a greater influence (and I've heard that argument), and suddenly, there were more people in the US due to this uptick in births, you wouldn't seriously argue that those families were causing harm, would you?
Beyond that, if there are more people in the US, then there are more people to purchase stuff, to use services, etc... ie, a larger market, so we would need more employees. Indeed, research shows that immigrants to cause serious harm as it relates to job loss.
To the degree that there might be some local spots with employment imbalances due to an influx in immigrants (or babies), that is just the free market at work. To criticize that, you'd have to criticize capitalism.
So, in short, I doubt that you can support that claim. Not according to the data I've read.
"Based on a survey of the academic literature, economists do not tend to find that immigrants cause any sizeable decrease in wages and employment of U.S.-born citizens, and instead may raise wages and lower prices in the aggregate..."
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/jobs/2012/05/04/what-immigration-means-for-u-s-employment-and-wages/
~Dan
So, no "seeking safety" is not criminal.
I'm sorry if you misunderstood. YES, seeking safety in an unapproved manner is criminal, at least, it's a misdemeanor and treated as a crime, as opposed to merely trying to escape to safety.
How about you, Craig? If someone comes to your house seeking safety from an imminent threat, do you turn them away? If they break in while you're gone to seek safety, do you have them arrested and call them criminals?
Surely we can agree, at least on the personal level, treating an individual, one to one at your house, as a criminal just for seeking safety ought NOT be done. They ought NOT be treated as a criminal... agreed?
If you can't agree, do you at least see how many would find such an attitude to be lacking in moral decency and, perhaps (depending on your reasoning) acting in a cowardly or criminally self-centered manner?
~Dan
"No one is harmed" by immigration, please prove this claim to be factual.
So, " seeking safety" is not criminal. Thank you for admitting the falseness of the very title of your post.
Even if your breaking in analogy wasn't flawed, helping some one "seek safety" doesn't necessarily mean allowing them to move in.
But, I guess you'll do anything to avoid being the least bit wrong.
I'm sorry, is that a Yes, you WOULD offer the "refugee" at your house support and, NO, you would NOT charge them with a crime?
You are correct, it doesn't necessarily mean letting them move in to your house permanently. But it sure as hell doesn't mean turning them away to go back to the dangerous situation or charge them with a crime when they were merely seeking safety.
Agreed?
The point, fellas, is harm. The immigrant coming here seeking safety and/or a better life are causing no harm. Those who send threatened people back ARE causing harm.
Let's not do harm, okay?
~Dan
""No one is harmed" by immigration, please prove this claim to be factual. "
Innocent until proven guilty.
Prove the harm.
But you can read the link I cited above is a starting point. I repeat:
"Based on a survey of the academic literature, economists do not tend to find that immigrants cause any sizeable decrease in wages and employment of U.S.-born citizens, and instead may raise wages and lower prices in the aggregate..."
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/jobs/2012/05/04/what-immigration-means-for-u-s-employment-and-wages/
~Dan
You made the claim, it's up to you to prove it.
If we stick with your analogy, then moving in and potentially being supported is exactly a analogous to what you are expecting from immigration policy. Your position also assumes that some sort of extended or permanent stay in the US is automatically the best outcome.
Essentially it's "Let's help the lucky few who can break the law to enter the US, and the rest can just suck it up where they are.".
Seems like it would make more sense to help improve the countries people come from so they don't have to leave.
But that's just silly.
You made the claim, it's up to you to prove it.
Fair enough, let's change it (and let's ignore the "innocent til proven guilty" shit. That stuff's for suckers, right?). I HAVE NO DATA that suggests anyone is harmed by immigration being open to receiving people in need of a better life.
If you have data to suggest otherwise, by all means, provide it. If not, then perhaps we can agree that neither of us has any data suggesting such a thing.
Or, we could just drop back to the old trustworthy US ideal of Innocent until proven Guilty. Your call.
Seems like it would make more sense to help improve the countries people come from so they don't have to leave.
Why need it be either/or? Why not both/and? I am entirely fine with working with countries/peoples to help them find a better life there. Of course, I am, who wouldn't be? (Well, besides apparently many conservatives and libertarians...)
So, yes, I fully support working hand in hand to see improvements in other nations (as opposed to "making improvements for" other nations, which too often backfires). That's not silly, it's something I support.
In the meantime, some people ARE escaping to seek safety (65 million in 2016!). The question is, do we turn them away or assist?
I asked a question earlier... IF someone came to your door because a killer was chasing them, would you turn them away or welcome them in? Send them back out or provide help?
I would refuse to turn anyone away and think that is the obvious moral starting place for a moral individual, community and society.
~Dan
So, Craig, you can provide data that shows immigrants cause harm by being immigrants here, or admit that you don't have the data. Either is fine.
And both of you can answer these reasonable and on-topic questions, raised by Marshall's analogy...
Are you saying that if someone came to your house fleeing danger, you would NOT let them in?
Are you saying that if someone broke in while you were gone to reach safety, you would prosecute them as "illegal escapers-from-harm.."?!
If you can't agree, do you at least see how many would find such an attitude to be lacking in moral decency?
You all can deal with these questions that are on the table, please, before moving on to other topics/comments.
If you can't address these questions/points, please refrain from additional comments.
Thanks,
Dan
This will probably be it from me for a while due to a family emergency but a couple of quick responses.
I love how your response to my request that you prove your claim is not proof, but redefining your claim. Then you demand I prove a claim I haven't made.
As for your hypothetical, I can't even begin to imagine how I'd respond based on the vague circumstances you outline. I will say that " illegal escapers from harm" is not actually a real thing, so it would be impossible to do so. Basing your hypothetical on something completely made up doesn't seem helpful though.
Finally, can you not see that providing "help" to the 65 million you claim are in immiadiate danger if harm, doesn't automatically mean throwing open the doors to the US and letting them in no questions asked. Or letting them in at all. You also realize that as the unemployment rate gets better, there will be fewer jobs available for these folks. You also realize that our stagnant "recovery" since 2009 hasn't provided enough economic growth to accommodate this many people. You also realize that in this world of a federal government that consistently spends more than it takes in, there isn't the money to support 65 million people.
But hey, who needs restrictions on immigration anyway. As long as they have a good story.
One last thought while I'm waiting. It's interesting that in all of your posts and comments, as well as (from what little we see of your off line life), you've never mentioned any solution other than wholesale immigration with little or no restriction. Yet when pushed you admit that it could be a both/and solution.
First it's a little ironic that you're blasting me for being immoral and heartless when I am actively and personally involved in both working with the immigrant community in the US as well as going overseas to offer help to those there. You act as if I'm completely unaware of the issues and as if failure to agree with you is automatically immoral.
Second, don't you think that helping these people in their country of origin is not a better solution. Don't you think that helping people live good productive lives where they already are doesn't ultimately benefit everyone more than encouraging virtually unfettered immigration to one country.
While short term refuge is certainly necessary (and given as you point out), it doesn't solve the larger global problems that we see.
Ultimately your problem in this discussion is that you make too many assumptions about what I know, who I hang out with, and how much I've studied this issue. I know it's easier to fall back on stereotypes and judging people by the group you assign them to, but it's really not helpful to make assumptions.
It's not a new problem with you, but it's still frustrating.
If I don't get back here, this makes a pretty good final comment.
It is indeed ironic when people actually make presumptions (especially false ones) about what a person does or doesn't advocate. Especially ironic is when they're accusing you of what they, themselves, are doing, not you.
I've made no presumptions, I've asked reasonable questions to ascertain your positions. If you refuse to answer directly and clearly, perhaps you can understand why it's not clear what your positions are.
Is it really difficult to understand the question, "what would you do if someone fleeing assault showed up at your door asking for help?" Or, " If someone broke into your house to escape an assailant, would you press charges? "
Those are hard to understand? How so?
Dan
Sorry to hear about your family emergency. My thoughts and prayers go out to you and yours.
Dan
It's interesting that in all of your posts and comments, as well as (from what little we see of your off line life), you've never mentioned any solution other than wholesale immigration with little or no restriction.
Because that was the topic of the post.
Yet when pushed you admit that it could be a both/and solution.
Of course. Just because I didn't mention other solutions to other problems on a topic on What to Do With Undocumented Immigrants doesn't mean I don't think that we ought not be doing things in other places.
Indeed, I don't know how you could read the "canon" of my writing here as much as you have and think I would not support helping people out in other places.
don't you think that helping these people in their country of origin is not a better solution.
Of course I do. That is, of course it is best to work out situations where people in, for instance, Mexico have enough resources to live and to live safely. Of course, that would be ideal.
But that is not the situation currently throughout all of Mexico, for instance. And so, some people, seeking safety and/or a better life (i.e., not starving, not having jobs, etc) and not being able to be one of the relative handful of people who can legally immigrate to the US have committed a minor misdemeanor and crossed the border in an illegal manner. For many of them, that was the fast way to safety and not starving, to sending money to their families so that they don't starve.
in THIS post, I wasn't addressing the larger problems of Mexico or the rest of the nations where people might need better solutions. In THIS post, I was speaking about the issue of people here who are undocumented and whose lives may be threatened elsewhere.
But I always support smart workable policies that help out not just here but other nations, too. I fully support trade agreements, for instance, that work for the poorest in both Mexico and the US (unlike NAFTA). Of course. So, where you say...
Seems like it would make more sense to help improve the countries people come from so they don't have to leave.
But that's just silly.
Yes, it would be silly not to help people in other nations. Just as it would be silly to suggest that I would oppose such ideas. Since I never have and have been quite vocal in the past about the topic.
But that was not the topic of THIS post. The topic of THIS post, as Marshall suggested with his analogy, is, "In a situation that is happening right NOW, and someone comes to your porch fleeing danger (and to be specific, if that helps, let's say it's a ten year old girl who is fleeing a 6'8", 240 lb, left-handed white male, roughly 24-32 years old, with a tattoo of a tear on his face and a swastika tattoo on his right elbow, who is wielding a knife and chasing the girl down the street saying, "I will rape you then murder you this knife in my hand!"...), will you say that she should go through the proper procedures, find an available police officer and request assistance? Or will you help her then and there?
I would bet and hope that both of you would open your door and let her in, then and there. It's what you do in the case of an immediate threat to an endangered innocent, right? But you tell me, that is the relatively simple question I'm asking, the first one. The ONLY presumption I'm making is that you would do the right thing and help this person, but you tell me.
cont'd...
A second question I'm asking is, What if the same 10 year old girl... oh, let's make it a 16 year old boy, how about that... comes to your house seeking to escape the same threatening man and you're not home, so the young man breaks in to YOUR home and doing so, in fact, does save his life. My question is, Do you have the boy arrested as an illegal criminal who committed a crime? OR, do you recognize that he was a smart and quick-thinking young man who acted wisely in escaping harm?
I would presume you all would do the right thing and not charge him with a crime, but you tell me.
I can't believe that you would find these questions difficult.
From that starting point, we've established a principle: It is moral and prudent to help a person escaping an immediate threat. If they commit even a minor misdemeanor in escaping that threat, it would be proper and wise for them to do so and they should not be held accountable as a "criminal" or an "illegal asylum seeker" for doing so.
Do we agree on that principle? I can't imagine you'd disagree with the larger principle, but you tell me.
From there, we could begin to discuss the gradients of lines on what constitutes an immediate threat, a severe threat, a serious danger on the one hand, and what constitutes reasonable and prudent responses to these threats/dangers and where is a line too far to cross without being an actual criminal.
In spite of a literal reading of the law (that would charge the 16 year old boy with breaking and entering even if he was just escaping danger), I think most people would be able to agree, at least in the simple analogy that Marshall offered and I expounded upon, that such a boy is NOT in any way a criminal or "illegal," and calling him that is just spiteful and immoral.
From there, we could expand the thinking to larger problems. Sure, if there were ONE 10 year old girl coming up to my door to escape from a killer, but what if there were 100? 1,000? (My answer: You try to help them all, then and there, if there's a killer coming because, of course you would! Who wouldn't?).
What if the threat isn't from a killer, but there was a disease in her neighborhood (on the other side of the tracks, five blocks away, for instance) and children kept slowly dying from this disease? Would you send the one girl back to that neighborhood? What if it were 100 children?
The point being, I ask these questions to establish principles where we can find some common ground before we work our way up to larger problems and more specifics, but why not establish the principles by which we are operating first?
Dan
One final thing, where you said...
your problem in this discussion is that you make too many assumptions about what I know, who I hang out with, and how much I've studied this issue. I know it's easier to fall back on stereotypes and judging people by the group you assign them to, but it's really not helpful to make assumptions.
What assumptions had I made about what you know? About who you hang out with? How much you've studied this issue?
In fact, in the real world, can we not agree that in my actual words there ARE NO assumptions or presumptions I've suggested about any of these? Perhaps it is you that is reading my words and making presumptions about what I mean when I write something, since I never actually said anything about any of those ideas...
When you keep telling people to talk to liberals or talk to immigrants, you clearly presume we don't.
As to your poor hypothetical, it's not that I don't understand it, it's that there isn't enough detail, it's not analogous to the immigration situation, and by purposely choosing a young child you load the hypothetical in favor of your chosen outcome.
Sigh. Craig, the very precise reason I asked you all to ask a friend is specifically what I've said... You all aren't understanding my words, so maybe if you ask a liberal or immigrant friend to read and explain it to you, maybe you'd understand it from a friend.
Understand now? Do you see your error in understanding on that point? Do you see how you read into my words something I neither said nor intended?
What more information do you need to answer the question? I explained who the attacker is, who the victims were, what the risk is... What possible additional information do you need?
Dan
I understand your need to justify why you tell people to talk to immigrants and liberals. For example I ran some of thoughts by one of the most liberal people I know and he couldn't make sense of it. I seriously doubt the legal immigrants I know will have much sympathy for your views either. The fact that you think all liberals or all immigrants are some sort of monolithic bloc with interchangeable views would be amusing if not so pathetic.
As to your ridiculous analogy, here are a few bits of information that might help.
1. The nature of the danger
2. How they entered my house
3. What sort of damage was done
4. How they reacted to me
5. Did they threaten myself or my family
That's just a few off the top of my head. So now you can reconstruct your poor analogy so that those additions details simply drive people toward the conclusion you want them to draw. So, in addition to being a poor analog for the immigration debate, its simply trying to manipulate emotion as if it's just a bunch of Jean ValJeans stealing bread for a starving relative.
Ultimately, if I found someone who had broken into my house, I'd call the police because their job is to investigate and find out the facts of the situation.
Hypothetically, let's say I find someone in my house hiding from some unidentifief "harm". I call the police and find they've been chased by some local neo-NAZI white supremacist Klan types. The information they give to the police alllows the police to round up the nasty racist pigs and convict them of numerous crimes. Meanwhile the "immigrants" are able to leverage their testimony into green cards. Let's imagine the same scenario, except you harbor them somewhere and the racist pigs find out where and cause harm to everyone in the "sanctuary".
See how easy it is to formulate a manipulative hypothetical situation designed to force people into only one "right" response.
That's why I'm not "answering" your hypothetical any more than I have.
Thanks for the prayers, the initial crisis is past, but we've got some hard work in front of us.
Damn, Craig. I asked a simple question based on Marshall's (not my) analogy. Yes, you can add all sort of details that changes the question, but then it's no longer MY question. I gave you the details of my question, why can't you answer the question that is being asked?
My point is that I suspect we can all agree to the principle: we should help those in danger. Why not clarify that we agree on that??
Last chance. Then I have given all the time I can spare to what seems like a simple question.
Dan
If you demand that I say that we should help those in danger, I say sure. You're the one who wants to make it complicated. I'm sorry you don't like it when I point out your attempt to construct manipulative hypotheticals.
To be clear, the question as it was asked was phrased in a manner to manipulate the answer in a particular direction, that's the problem.
To be absolutely factual and clear, the question was asked in such a way as to, hopefully, establish some common ground, some principles on which we can agree.
Do you really view that as a problem?
Do you see efforts at finding common ground to be manipulative?
And do you recognize that it is Marshall's analogy?
I'm wondering if this is some of our problems in communication... I regularly (and honestly, earnestly) seek common ground as a starting point. I ask questions that I believe we can agree upon to try to establish some principles we can agree with and think that we can work outwards from there.
But I feel like those sincere (if pointed) questions are met with hostility. Is it the case that what I view as a good faith effort to find common ground to better help in understanding, you all view as "manipulative" and "dishonest..." and, if so, why the hostility towards the idea of finding common ground?
~Dan
Really, Art is the one who manipulated the gender and age of the person in order to add more emotional manipulation?
It seems that starting a post with a title that doesn't reflect reality isn't a good way to establish common ground.
Oh my gosh, Craig! YOU SAID it was too vague. Because of YOUR concerns, I gave you some details! This is crazy land, do you understand it?
Seeking common ground is manipulative? Asking a fairly clear question based on Marshall's analogy is too vague? Giving details in response is wrong?!
The post DOES reflect reality. It HAS been criminalized to cross the border in some ways that are not approved. People seeking safety in that way have been criminalized by people like Marshall. Will you ever answer questions directly and clearly?
I'll have to be honest... it doesn't seem like you're interested in honest dialogue, Craig. Only in offering criticisms.
Damn, you can't even agree, "yes, I would defend people seeking safety at my door!"
It was a simple question raised by Marshall, not me.
What the hell, man?
I think we DO agree, it's just your political allegiances have you determined to be combative.
Peace, man, seriously, Peace.
Dan
Art is the one who manipulated the gender and age of the person in order to add more emotional manipulation?
Just to, hopefully, help you understand: Sometimes, in analogies to help determine principles, people do paint things in extremes... just to help illustrate the point.
If I'm not sure if someone is in support of the principle: We ought always help those who are escaping death and harm, then I might say, "Well surely you don't mean that! What if the person running for their lives is being threatened with a gun... don't you think you should render aid? No?? Well, what if it were a child!??"
The point is to establish a principle (in this case, WE OUGHT TO COME TO THE AID OF THOSE BEING THREATENED) and from that principle that we can all agree upon, THEN we can start drawing lines and getting into particulars, but the principle will stand.
It's a clarifying measure, not a manipulative one.
Look, I gave you my clear principle many times in many ways already: If someone comes to my porch seeking asylum from a threat (as Marshall put it to me), YES, of course I will help. It's a principle.
BUT, I am glad to build on it from there. What if, instead of a 10 year old, it's three husky-looking men who appear to be drunk and I see no threat outside and I have my children inside... THEN do I let them into the house? No, probably not. BUT I have already established the principle I live by: We help those in need of sanctuary... and I will stand by that principle... but in this case, with no visible current threat and considering my own children, that help may come in the form of me making a phone call to the police (which I would have done, of course, in the case of the child, too) while I stand with them men, prepared to let them in if an armed threat arises...
The point of analogies is to take a larger, more difficult situation and simplifying it, for clarity's sake. In this case, to help establish the principle which I believe can unite us.
Do you really find that odd and manipulative?
Analogy: An analogy is a comparison in which an idea or a thing is compared to another thing that is quite different from it. It aims at explaining that idea or thing by comparing it to something that is familiar.
An analogy looks at complex subjects and simplifies them through comparison. The simplified or more familiar aspect of an analogy helps a reader understand the more complex concept.
You do understand that this is how analogies work, right?
I just don't understand the push back against analogies (in this case, one that Marshall raised, I need to remind yo, and an apt one) to help establish principles. I don't understand the hesitancy to agree with what should not be difficult to agree with.
~Dan
Yes Dan, as a general rule I find that you choose your analogies and structure them so as to get the response that you want.
Again, if you can't provide the actual code section in US law that specifically criminalizes "seeking safety", that demonstrates that falsehood of the very title of the post and the premise behind it.
As far as common ground, I think that by my words and actions that I've demonstrated a willingness to aid those in need. Just because I don't agree that laws can be broken with impunity to get there doesn't invalidate the point of common ground.
Hypothetically, would you say it's acceptable for me to assault another person (a misdemeanor) in order to facilitate the safety of an immigrant who was engaged in violation the law. ( Entering the country illegally, breaking and entering, stealing etc)
So, no, you don't understand how analogies work? Is that your direct and clear answer to my simple question?
No, I do not support causing harm to anyone, unless they're causing harm to someone else, and then, only to stop the harm. That is to say, in clear and direct response to your question, IF a citizen is attempting to tackle, grab or otherwise molest an immigrant (or anyone) to "stop" the immigrant, then I would support physically intervening, ideally using safe physical management techniques. But not assaulting.
Dan
Wow. It seems Dan has twisted my analogy. I now have to re-read everything to see where he went wrong...which I will need a couple days to complete. I've no doubt it will be time wasted.
You asked me what I would do if someone tried getting into my house. I answered. How specifically is that twisted?
Dan
More specifically, you suggested it was hypocritical to have locks on my doors and I pointed out that the locks were to keep the bad guys out, not those seeking safety.
Dan
Here's the exact quote from you, Marshall...
I asked why that inability makes our laws immoral? "Immoral" is breaking the law, not defending it or expecting that it be obeyed. With your twisted reasoning, you're a hypocrite if you have doors on your house.
I explained that there are two things in question here:
1. Legitimate self-protection (ie, I don't criticize anyone for having locks on their doors to keep intruders out... since I'm fine with self-protection, there is no hypocrisy in having locks on my doors)... and
2. Offering assistance in times of emergencies, specifically, of threats.
Thus, if criminals come to my door, I'm fine with locking them out.
BUT, if a person comes to my door asking for asylum because they're being pursued by a killer, that is an entirely different thing.
The crossing the border without documentation/permission is much more fitting with the latter analog. Immigrants, by and large by a vast amount, are NOT coming with intent to harm. They just are not.
Do you recognize that reality? Or is it the case that you're unaware of the data on the topic?
By and large, they are coming to escape immediate threats, general threats or to seek jobs to escape slow starvation/save their families or just because of insufficient opportunity where they're from.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/why-don%E2%80%99t-they-just-get-line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Causes_by_region
Thus, an analogy to "criminals coming to break into my home to steal or cause harm" (ie, the reason for locked doors) is NOT a sound analog to why immigrants cross the borders. It's much more akin to the ones seeking safety from harm or economic deprivation.
I lock to protect against harm, NOT to protect against people seeking escape from harm.
So, I would ask you again the reasonable question your analogy raises: Wouldn't YOU open your door to a person seeking refuge from harm?
On a side note: you fellas are aware, aren't you, of the research that suggests that the portion of the brain that regulates fear is over-sized in the brains of conservatives, right? Do you think it's possible/a potential explanation why you see "illegal immigrants" and think
"FEAR, Harm may be coming!!"
even though the data doesn't support that, whereas progressives see undocumented immigrants and think
"Gee, things must be tough where they are, what can we do to help? Certainly NOT "lock them up/kick them out!"
~Dan
No, I understand how analogies work, I just don't think intentionally manipulative analogies designed to elicit a predetermined response are helpful. For example you frequently use the "raping puppies" analogy, which is so extreme and loaded as to compel the response you want to get. In this s case Art didn't do much use an analogy as point out a potential contradiction. You turned that example into an analogy and then took it beyond an analog for the immigration situation. You then introduced characters designed to elicit particular responses to try to force agreement.
I have to note that while you like to make up analogies, you're not so willing to respond to analogies.
But, to answer Art's original question. I have locks on my doors so that I can control access to my personal, private, property. I can be as generous as I want to with that access, but ultimately it's mine to give or deny. In the same way, a country can be generous or not with access to immigrants, but it's up to the legal governing bodies of the countries to make that decision.
I know that's a radical view, allowing countries to make their own laws...
"1. Legitimate self-protection (ie, I don't criticize anyone for having locks on their doors to keep intruders out... since I'm fine with self-protection, there is no hypocrisy in having locks on my doors)... and"
That's what the borders are for, what border gates are for and what immigration laws, policies and the enforcement of those laws and policies are for. The hypocrisy is that you insist doors, gates or border policies are not parallels of each other, and that while you're fine with self-protection for yourself, that same concept is immoral for the nation.
"2. Offering assistance in times of emergencies, specifically, of threats."
This assumes there is no provision for this nationally, just because you don't think there's enough of it or what exists doesn't meet YOUR standards. As to your own ability to provide that for others who seek it directly of you, you presume in your response to my analogy is that you already know that those who claim they're fleeing harm actually are doing so. There's no way to know this simply because they say so, even if they have child in tow. Muslims are known for sacrificing their children to do harm, for example.
So when you say that those you discover have broken into your home to flee harm, there is no way you wouldn't first call the police (unless you're a total idiot who cares little for the lives of your own family). This means detention of some kind for some duration until it can be confirmed that those who broke into your home are actually threatened in some way. But for the nation, you find this immoral.
"The crossing the border without documentation/permission is much more fitting with the latter analog. Immigrants, by and large by a vast amount, are NOT coming with intent to harm"
YOU are incapable of knowing when that is true or when it is not. YOU insist that our existing policies ignore those who are or must be perfect in their discretionary abilities in order to pronounce immigration policies "moral".
"On a side note: you fellas are aware, aren't you, of the research that suggests that the portion of the brain that regulates fear is over-sized in the brains of conservatives, right?"
I recognize that you lefties like to throw out species "studies" upon which you satisfy yourselves is legitimate simply because it negatively characterizes conservatives. What of lefties who wake up and realize conservative philosophies are sound? Has that portion of the brain suddenly increased in size? What bullshit!
I guess the manifestation of my fear is that I've spent the last decade working side by side with immigrants helping them to purchase affordable housing , and going to other countries where I'm surrounded by potential immigrants and helping them.
As long as you can try to paint your opponents as irrational, you don't have to have a coherent argument.
You all just do not seem to understand what I'm saying and that part which you do understand, you seem mostly to disagree. So be it.
My points:
* We should always welcome those who are in need. Always.
* Which is not to say we are destined to live stupidly. We should always find the best way to welcome and assist those in need. Best by and for all involved, not just best as decided by one group (ie, "Us...").
* In spite of your apparent reluctance to agree with me on ANYTHING - just on principle, it seems - I suspect that you and those like you agree with me that we should always welcome all who are in need and work for helpful solutions for all, NOT just for "us first, THEN maybe others..."
Maybe you don't, I don't know. But I believe in you all that you're not as selfish as you sometimes sound. I suspect we agree on some basic level.
* of course, we should look for solutions that involve Other Places being safe and healthy and prosperous places for people to live so there is no need for Sanctuary. Nonetheless, when the need arises, I support offering sanctuary because, why wouldn't we? Golden Rule. Christianity. Jesus, God, basic human decency and all that. Karma, if naught else.
* We need to work to end the notion of "illegal immigrants." There ain't no such thing in our law and it is a patently offensive and belittling and patronizing term that is an epithet, NOT a reflection of reality or our law, flawed as it may be.
* We need to work to end the notion of criminalizing seeking safety (ie, crossing a border "illegally" because you are hungry and can't sustain life where you are, or because there are political, religious or cultural threats where you are). Seeking safety should never be a crime and telling people "Oh, you can seek safety, just do it on our time schedule the way we tell you to" needs to be recognized as sanctimonious bullshit.
Disagree if you wish. I'm working with and for others for a better way, one that involves acceptance, not rejection, peace not war, safety not danger.
~Dan
Once again, can you cite the specific language of the US criminal code that makes "seeking safety" a crime.
As far as illegal immigrants, in the absence of a better, more accurate term, I'll stick with the common terminology used by everyone except you.
Finally, I guess you missed the whole "I work with immigrants", thing and choose to act like it's just you.
Says a bit about your circles and awareness if you think I'm the sole one who recognizes the moral and rational offense of the term.
As to your last comment, I'd point out that this is another instance of you reading into things,ideas I have not said.
When people cross the border seeking safety and are arrested for it, how is that not criminalizing seeking safety?
Dan
Once again, you can't point out where specifically "seeking safety" is criminalized. Instead you try to redefine the word criminalize while simultaneously assigning a single motive ("seeking safety") to all who violate immigration law.
So, you have made two statements you can't prove to be factual, yet you can't admit that. I wonder why.
Craig, answer the question or move on:
When people cross the border seeking safety (or to avoid starving, to find secure jobs and be able to support their families, etc... you know, the reason that most people cross the border) and they're arrested for it, how is that not criminalizing seeking safety (safe food systems, safety from oppression or harm, safe jobs, etc)?
If you can't answer the question, please move on.
Thank you.
Dan
You won't answer my question, but demand I answer yours.
But to make my point. No matter why people cross the border illegally (to "seek safety", to smuggle drugs or people, to take advantage of various governmental benefits, or whatever other reason) they have committed a federal crime. When they are arrested they are not charged with "seeking safety". They are charged with failing to obey federal immigration law.
So, unless you can provide the specific section of US criminal code that explicitly criminalizes "seeking safety", it's clear that your just trying to play word games and make assumptions about why people refuse to follow immigration law.
The fact that you've had to add other reasons to "seeking safety", simply makes my point about you imposing your assumptions on immigrants.
...and WHY have they been charged with violating this whimsical, non-harm-based law? Because they were (by and large) seeking safety.
It fucking does matter what people's actions are. IF one crosses a line to kill someone, they are charged with trying to kill someone and rightly so because Harm. If one crosses a line to give a flower to someone, it would be insane to charge them with a crime because NO HARM.
Yes, actions matter. If not to you, they do to me and they are the point of this post. If you don't like it, feel free to move on and keep supporting immoral laws that cause harm.
This is a victimless misdemeanor.
And I have not added a single thing, Craig. Clearly you have missed my point. I've always been quite clear that they are seeking safety, refuge, etc... for a variety of reasons. Sometimes because of immediate threats of harm. Sometimes because of general threats of harm. Sometimes because of threats of starvation. Sometimes to feed and support their families.
NONE of these actions are crimes in and of themselves. It is only a misdemeanor because we made up a law NOT based on harm but based on crossing an imaginary line.
We ought not have laws that make it a crime to seek safety (from harm, starvation, etc - sorry if you failed to understand that, but I'm not changing anything). Laws that prevent people from doing wise, reasonable, moral things are unjust and immoral laws.
So, VERY last time, Craig, WHY are people crossing this imaginary line?
Show me that you have a grasp of reality.
~Dan
Which question do you want answered exactly, Dan? Why are they arrested? Why are they breaking the law?
For the first question, they are arrested for breaking the law, regardless of the severity of the law. As I've clearly explained exhaustively, the reason for breaking the law is determined to be legitimate or not after arrest and detention for breaking the law. YOUR choosing to ignore the reasons why a law is in place...to assume you can ignore a law because YOU refuse to recognize the harm, regardless of severity, is both unAmerican AND unChristian. Let's just assume all who murder had a legitimate reason. No need to place them under arrest and try them to determine guilt. No doubt they had good reason...likely fighting potential harm to themselves...which is always the case in the minds of the murderers!!
For the second question, I'm still at a loss for how you determine that the flight from harm is legitimate. Do you get on the phone and talk to those who are accused of oppression and ask them to verify that they're trying to kill those you harbor?
I'm also wondering as to the limits of such an open door policy that you don't live out in your personal life. Just how many people do you expect this nation can support, particularly if you haven't, or won't or cannot confirm their stories. Of course you don't concern yourself with that because you just expect others to foot the bill. But we don't need entire populations to cross the border in order to overwhelm the system. So how would that work exactly, when you insist we shouldn't live "stupidly"? How many millions, all claiming oppression dogs them, can we be expected to "welcome" before there is indeed harm that even one so pompous as you can't help but see it?
And what of those even your likely inadequate protocols would not confirm are legitimately fleeing danger? Do you send them back? I'd wager you still would not. But if you would, what if they are indeed fleeing danger but you simply couldn't confirm it? Is your "law" now also immoral?
I insist that to call our immigration laws immoral because they cannot provide for every sad story is asinine to a degree that would be hard to surpass. It is immature and illogical and I submit it compels far more questions than I've asked thus far (none of which I expect you'll answer).
More coming...
.to assume you can ignore a law because YOU refuse to recognize the harm
We who oppose unjust laws do so because people SHOULD oppose unjust laws.
Do you disagree?
Answer that question or move on.
(I've decided that you all not answering clear and pertinent questions is a deterrent to communication so, here on my blog, I'm going to start expecting it. My blog, my rules.)
if you would, what if they are indeed fleeing danger but you simply couldn't confirm it?
If a person came to my door and said they were fleeing harm, I would tend to believe it if I had no reason not to. Why would someone make up something like that?
Are you saying that you tend to doubt people who come up to you and say they're fleeing harm? Guilty until proven innocent?
Answer the question, please. Thanks.
How many millions, all claiming oppression dogs them, can we be expected to "welcome" before there is indeed harm that even one so pompous as you can't help but see it?
There are ~65 million refugees fleeing harm right now. I say that the world at large (at least the moral and responsible adult portion of the world) is responsible for finding safe places for them one way or another... I would expect those who have much (and the US has much) to do much. I'm open to doing that in different ways. I'm opposed to doing nothing or sending them back to harm.
You?
Dan
So, you still can't provide the specific statute that criminalizes "seeking safety" and you feel qualified to accurately summarize the one primary reason why people violate immigration laws.
I note that you make one of your subtle changes to help you justify your assumptions. In my examples I have reasons why people might cross the border (as you are claiming to do), to make the point that why people violate immigration law doesn't change the fact that the did violate immigration law. You've taken that a step further and presumed that the reason to cross the border in violation of the law has been fulfilled and the pers has been caught. But, (in the case of murder) they would be charged with both murder as well as violating immigration law.
I'm answer to your question "Why?", I already gave you a list of reasons. It's not exhaustive, but it's more than "seeking safety". Here are a few more: smuggling, human trafficking, terrorism, shopping, employment
BTW, when you keep bleating about "harm", are you unaware of the increasing number of crimes committed by refugees in Europe? Are you unaware of the tightening of immigration laws in Europe because of the effects refugees and immigrants are causing? Can you actually provide actual data that proves your claim that immigrants who violate immigration laws cause zero harm to anyone and that they victimize zero people? Of course you can't, but that small detail won't stop you from claiming it does. .
But what standard or mandate can you demand that all people "should" oppose unjust laws?
By what objective standards does one determine what is an "unjust" law?
Why should anyone agree with, and act on your perception of what makes an "unjust" law?
By and large, opposition to unjust laws is a good thing, it's determining what laws are unjust that's a problem.
I'm not assuming anything about people's motives. I'm saying "Trust but verify" is a healthy attitude. I'm also saying that people lying to evoke sympathy is something that's been known to happen. Gullible folks tend to get manipulated by these stories.
Back to your zero harm claim.
If an immigrant claims to be fleeing immanant danger (when they aren't) and displaces someone who is actually in danger isn't there harm being done?
As far as your new answering questions policy, it's fine for you to make these sorts of rules at your blog, but you should be prepared to be held to the same standard when you go to other blogs. Which means, promptly and directly answering questions and not whining when your failure to do so has repercussions.
"Hopelessness is the enemy of justice."
A friend of mine posted this quote on Facebook today and I was struck by how I and others around me respond to this compared to what Dan has been advocating.
The vision of hope (as Dan has articulated it here) is emigrate to the US and we'll try to eliminate or mitigate the potential for punishment. (There may be more, but this is pretty much the only specific he's articulated here).
While I, and the people I'm involved with are trying to give people hope by encouraging economic development across the globe, traveling to the poorest of the poor and providing medical services and building hospitals, working to stop human trafficking, just to name a few things.
Where I see the difference is between "Let's go to where the need is and meet needs there." and "Let's wait until people have illegally entered the U.S. and try to mitigate their crime and protect them from the punishment for that crime.".
Again, I'm just limiting this to what's specifically been articulated here as well as the focus by the left on "Sanctuary Cities" and helping immigrants avail themselves of various forms of government assistance. (Not suggesting that Dan specifically is doing this, just what I see locally)
I'll close this by talking about a video I saw of a 12 year old boy from Syria whose father had been killed and who was trying to support his mother and siblings. When asked what he wanted, his answe was "I want the opportunity to be able to gar a job in Syria to be able to support my family and allow my siblings to go to school.". I think it's telling that he didn't want a trip to Europe or the U.S., he didn't want a handout, he wanted a country where he could provide for his family by working.
IMO, we should be putting more effort into helping young men like that succeed where they are, than to helping folks evade immigration laws.
But, that's just me and the folks I hang out with.
"We who oppose unjust laws do so because people SHOULD oppose unjust laws.
Do you disagree?
Answer that question or move on."
Of course, but there are two problems here:
1. Our immigration laws are not unjust simply because you insist they are or because they do not cover every conceivable consequence of their existence.
2. Unjust laws do not justify ignoring or breaking them, or enabling those who do or will. This is particularly true where the "unjust" quality of the law is wholly debatable, as is the case here.
So the question is irrelevant and premature given that the justification for our current immigration laws are not overshadowed by the possibility that they might be inconvenient or an interference with the desires of some.
"If a person came to my door and said they were fleeing harm, I would tend to believe it if I had no reason not to. Why would someone make up something like that?"
Gosh. Give a few weeks to come up with an answer for that extremely difficult question. In the meantime, how about: to rob you, to rape your womenfolk, to torture you and your family for fun before robbing you, to take advantage of your gullible nature and to see if they can play upon it for some form of profit?
"Are you saying that you tend to doubt people who come up to you and say they're fleeing harm?"
Reserving judgement until the story is confirmed is not "doubt". It's intelligent. If someone comes to me with such a story, my first act is to call the police while keeping an eye on the person. My first duty as a husband and father is ALWAYS to put the safety of my family first. Just as there's no reason to suspect the person I've never before seen is lying, there is no reason to suspect the person is telling the truth simply because of the claim that danger exists.
"There are ~65 million refugees fleeing harm right now. I say that the world at large (at least the moral and responsible adult portion of the world) is responsible for finding safe places for them one way or another..."
We're not talking about the world at large. We're talking about the U.S. and your personal involvement with harboring those not authorized to be in the country. What's more, "finding safe places for them" does nothing to address the reasons why they flee, thus enabling the oppression of millions more.
"I would expect those who have much (and the US has much) to do much"
This does not include the killing or driving off of those who are responsible for the oppression that leads to refugees. It only includes putting the arm on those who have worked hard to obtain much, while you live your simple life. I expect those with expectations like yours use the ability you claim you possess to increase your wealth to actually do so before daring to suggest you are justified in having those expectations.
"IMO, we should be putting more effort into helping young men like that succeed where they are, than to helping folks evade immigration laws. "
Indeed, and there are clear advantages in doing so, such as common cultural atmosphere and language more suitable to the comfort of the refugee.
Think clearly a second fellows and ask, "Do I think that Dan and people like him are opposed to supporting other nations being more stable, stronger and safer? Or is it more likely that they support initiatives and policies that help other nations be more stable and secure?"
What is your answer to these questions?
Just because I'm not talking about that other topic if foreign aid on a post about immigration doesn't really mean anything, does it?
Please answer.
Dan
It means that no one has any idea regarding your views on immigration beyond your insistence that US immigration laws are unjust and should be ignored and disobeyed.
Given your lack of significant comment on anything beyond this limited part of a large and complex discussion it's hard to know what your position. Perhaps you noticed that I addressed the possibility in my comments. Maybe you missed that before you chose to get offended.
My answer to your questions is, based on what you've written, is that I have no idea. I can only deal with what you actually say, not with what you don't say.
I'd suggest that your lack of comment on the larger issues involved in this discussion, indictees some degree of focus on one small portion of the discussion.
I also don't see how you can continue to insist that immigrants bring zero harm, while there is ample evidence from Europe that suggests otherwise.
Seriously, Craig? Given my praise for your work in Haiti, given that progressives almost always support foreign aid, given my concern for the poor globally... You seriously think it's possible I'm opposed to helping other nations out?
Don't mistake this for me taking offense. It's me being incredulous that you could have read me for so long and not have a clue.
Dan
Maybe you should have read what I wrote more carefully. The fact that you think I'm talking about "foreign aid" reinforces my point.
I thought I was quite clear clear, that I was basing my impressions on what you've chosen to write about and quite clearly said that. I'm not the one who's chosen not to address the broader spectrum of this issue.
You didn't answer my question. Are you confused by my use of the term foreign aid? If so, please ask for clarification. In this case, I'm pointing out that I and liberals have always tended to support the notion of providing assistance in a variety of forms to other, struggling nations. That assistance may come in the form of charity (although I think many of us have learned to be careful about that), or in the form of changing policies that are harmful to the poorer nation, it may come in the form of government grants to assist NGOs, etc. Progressives tend to support efforts to assist struggling nations in just ways. We're you unaware of this?
That is my question to you. It seems hard to believe that well read adults would be unaware of this.
Dan
I did answer your question. I can't address what I don't know about. You dot address anything beyond this tiny slice of a complex problem, I don't draw conclusions about what you don't address. I could make assumptions, I could base those assumptions on stereotypes, instead I limited myself to dealing with the specific topic you chose to address.
If you'd prefer I make assumptions please let me know.
Because clearly engagement in other countries has absolutely no relationship to the issue of immigration, how ridiculous to even think of connecting the two.
"Are you confused by my use of the term foreign aid?"
Not at all. In most common usage however, the term refers to aid provided by the U.S. government to governments in other countries. While a degree of this is probably necessary, it really hasn't and doesn't do anything to alleviate the conditions that impel people to want to leave their country of origin.
I don't find it particularly strange that someone on the political left would gravitate toward a government solution and away from a solution that is more directly connected to the people that are being helped.
The problem I'm having in communicating with you gentlemen is that with each comment I make, you all respond with a misunderstanding or misstatement or two of what I've said. So, I ask clarifying questions which are ignored or met with yet another misunderstanding or two which I try to clarify, and yet, not forgetting the first one or two that still need to be corrected, and the misstatements and misunderstandings just keep piling up til the communication is a big muddled mass of words.
I have never said that I'm opposed to helping foreign nations have more stable economies. Of course, I'm not.
I've never said that immigration and the stability of other nations are unrelated topics. Of course they are.
Nonetheless, one can talk about one without touching on the other, in a given reflection, just as one can talk about drug addiction without talking about the related topic of criminal code.
I'm giving up, at least for now, helping you understand my points.
And so it goes.
Dan
Of course doing so has several benefits for you.
1. It allows you to continue to believe that everything is our fault, that we just aren't quite sharp enough to get your pontificating.
2. It allows you to pretend that we don't answer your questions, even though I have answered all of your recent "clarifying" questions.
3. It allows you to avoid providing proof for your zero harm claim.
4. It allows you to ignore what I actually wrote, in favor of what you think I wrote.
All things considered, that's a win for you.
Case in point.
Craig, in spite of what you THINK I'm saying, I'm suggesting you ask a liberal friend to read and explain what I'm actually saying because WE (IE, you and I) have not been able to communicate successfully. You keep reading meaning into my words that I have not said. I'm not blaming you, I'm just saying WE have not been able to communicate. In my experience, liberals who've read my words have not had the difficulty understanding my meaning that you all have. Thus, my suggestion that you ask a friend to give it a try.
Or, if we ever meet in person, I'm more confident that understanding would be easier.
To the "harm" question, in our nation, we believe in the notion of innocent until proven guilty. The onus is on you to support a claim of harm (if that is what you believe). But we've had this conversation.
If you're ever in Louisville, look me up.
Peace,
Dan
It's strange, I have no problem understanding you and the fact that you think I should ask some random liberal to explain what you mean is truly nonsensical to me.
Although the harm claim is s great example. You have been quite clear in claiming that immigrants do zero harm to the US. In most rational conversations the onus would be on the person who makes the claim to be able to demonstrate the accuracy of the claim. But not here, I've never actually made any specific claims of harm, only asked that you support your claims. Yet somehow you've decided that I need to support a claim I haven't made, as well as that you are exempt from supporting the claims you've made.
As to the "innocent until proven guilty" non sequeter, that has nothing to do with proving harm.
So if it is helpful for you to absolve yourself of any responsibility to prove your claims or to explain your positions feel free. But the constant blaming of others just gets old.
Indeed. The whole idea of regulating immigration is to impede harm. Yet, anyone who is so impeded, for whatever reason given, would insist they are at risk somehow. For some, it could be truly horrible danger, while for others it only means having to go back home to continue in one's meager existence. While unfortunate in both cases, if those cases haven't been made to satisfy the criteria for entry, that doesn't mean the law and criteria for satisfying the law are in any way immoral.
As such, I would again ask, on what basis is the law immoral exactly? How is not being convinced of one's plea immoral? What is the limit of our welcome given how many claim to be fleeing harm, either due to war, ethnic cleansing, religious persecution or just economic hardship? At what point is our welcoming attitude ever to be considered harm and hardship to our own people?
I recall one former visitor to these blogs, Geoffrey Kruse-Safford (sp), who once supported absolutely no borders at all, with foreigners free to come and go as they please as if we are one big happy. While I won't go so far as to claim Dan agrees with this idiocy, especially given what has been said here, the concerns raised above have yet to be resolved in this discussion in any way. I'm speaking here specifically about the alleged "immorality" of our immigration policy. I would expect a wholesale recantation of this notion or some specific support for it.
My point/position: if a person is in danger - either through direct and imminent threat or vague, general, but serious threat at location 1, but can be safe by moving 5 miles north, it is rational and moral for him to move and immoral and irrational to oppose that move. Imaginary national border lines be damned.
Do you understand?
I am fine with REGULATIONS involving that move, but any effort to block the move is immoral and should be opposed.
If it were you and your loved ones under threat, would you seriously not agree?
Further, if we change the threat from one of physical violence to food/water insecurity, my position remains the same.
Again, if it were YOUR child who went to bed hungry night after night, are you suggesting you'd support people blocking your access to a better life for your kids?
I don't know how to be any more clear. If you don't understand or still support us blocking people from merely seeking security and don't see the immorality of that position, well, Lord have mercy on you.
Dan
Yes, you've repeated that many times. What you haven't done is demonstrated how the curt system impedes what you claim to want.
There is a process that provides restrictions on the mechanics of the process, while removing the imminent threat during the process.
There is grant latitude in the granting of asylum in this country especially when there is evidence of persecution.
Clearly when it comes to food/water the best and most permanent answer does not lie in allowing unlimited immigration, but in continuing the amazing strides being made in minimizing hunger throughout the world.
One problem with this is the high concentration of these negative outcomes in a small number of Muslim nations who won't allow relief efforts to come in, nor their people to leave.
As far as you trying to personalize this, my answer remains the same. I would exhaust all available legal means to alleviate the situation before I would consider crime.
Again, absolutely no one is blocking any one from "seeking security", they are enforcing restrictions on the process but this notion of arbitrary blocking is fallacious. Is it possible that some people, after exhausting the process, are not given the outcome they would prefer, sure, but who always gets everything they want. Are they exposed to danger during the process,no. Doesn't that solve the immidiate problem, yes.
Are there changes that could be made, sure. Do any of those involve unrestricted access to permanent residency, no they shouldn't.
Ultimately your problem is lack of specificity. You want change, but don't define it. You rail against injustice but don't explain what you consider justice. You try to manipulate emotion, without reference to fact. You make claims, yet don't provide the data to support them.
It's not what you say that's not understandable, it's the vast amour that you don't say where the problems arise.
But continue to blame if you like.
Craig pretty much nails it with his last comment.
Dan, on the other hand, speaks in very specious generalities designed to support his position, more than enlighten or expose any real truth...at least not as regards our objections and need for clarifications.
Impeding the ability of the suffering to escape their suffering is not immoral if what is impeding them is moral...or morally neutral.
Dan would have us believe that the moral justifications for immigration regulations...that of protecting the citizens of this country...are necessarily immoral if by doing what they were designed to do they at the same time do not provide for those who are not citizens. This is absurd to a degree we rarely see outside of Dan's fantasy world. It's very much the same crap we hear when people like Dan speak of economic inequality...as if our capitalist economic system intends to leave some people impoverished.
And while he never speaks of the issue before the point of having determined the plea for sanctuary is justified, at no point does he discuss just how he, or the nation, is to confirm that the plea is legitimate and not just a ruse to enter the country to take advantage of our opportunities, the fruits of which are sent home to other family, friend or whatever. I've on doubt the United States can provide a better life, even far better, for even those who are not facing real deprivation or direct oppression.
At the same time, I've just as little doubt that despite our best efforts to appease the undefined proposals of the Dans of the world, there will still be those who are legitimate victims/targets of physical/economic dangers who will not be helped, or worse, still not seen as legitimate victims in need of sanctuary. Will that mean Dan's suggestions for improvements nonetheless leave our policies to remain as evil? Nothing Dan has written so much as hints that he's really thought this through beyond what it means for his own self-image.
I clicked on the proof text link and to my surprise I figured out why there are no NT proof texts in this post. Maybe it's because most of them say that believers are called to respect and obey the government. Of course the fact that none of them specifically mention immigration is another.
I guess the selective proof texts might lead one to draw certain conclusions about the point of using them.
Clearly it's not designed that give God's imprimatur to the screed that follows.
I also note the fact that theses particular proof texts are attributed to "God", in this post while other statements in the OT would elicit ridicule if attributed to "God". It's also unusual that all of a sudden we start seeing the term God capitalized, which is not always.the case.
It's just convenient that all of a sudden God (in the flawed and ahistorical OT) has spoken directly and authoritatively on this one particular subject.
I know, it's just a coincidence and isn't really meant to suggest that God has an opinion on US immigration law, it's just convenient when God's clear and unambiguous teachings just happen to line up ones political views.
Sigh. I quote ancient Persian sage, Rumi all the time. Does that mean that I want to implement Muslim Sharia law?
No, it means I respect the truth he shared. But the point is: the Truth is true NOT because of the source. It's true because it's true.
Many OT writers passed on great Truths, some that remain quite valid and powerful. But it's not because the Bible tells me so. It's true because it's true. Life and wisdom testify to the truth.
Know it, and be set free.
Dan
For that's your story, who am I to question it. Of course, there's the whole picking and choosing to directly attribute to God a only those things you agree with. Of course, you didn't choose to quote some obscure Persian sage, you chose to quote God. Clearly having God underpinning your screed carries much more theoretical weight than some random Persian sage.
If you repeat this often enough maybe you'll eventually become convincing.
Too bad your previous takes on the OT undermine your claims.
Also your previous stance on the existence and knowability of Truth also undermines your point.
1. Just as an educational moment: Rumi is hardly "some random Persian sage." He is known and beloved by people of all and no religions the world around. He is the best selling poet in the US. He sells about 365,000 copies of his book each year, I hear. Just fyi.
2. I cite the Bible in the same way I cite Rumi, because of the truths I read there. As I said.
BUT, there is an additional reason to cite the Bible that no doubt crosses my mind. In cases like this, where conservative Christians are perhaps some of the most opposed to welcoming immigrants in the sense I'm speaking of (just a guess, based on conservative values) AND where those same conservative Christians DO tend to take the Bible literally... it's a reminder that the Bible and God directly has a hella lot more to say about how we treat immigrants than it does about opposing gay guys getting married (that number being Zero).
3. Thus, again, it's not that I'm quoting God because finding a quote attributed to God makes an idea more palatable/worthy (there are those who attribute to God commands to kill babies, for instance), but because the quote itself is speaking truth to power and is noteworthy for what it's saying.
As with most things, your opinions/interpretations of my "previous stance" on Truth is most likely incorrect.
~Dan
1. He's random in the sense that he has no direct bearing on this conversation, and if he only sells 365,000 book a year, he's hardly hugely popular.
2. So, you really don't believe God said any of the things you proof texted, you just want to use scripture as a club against people who you perceive disagree with your opinion on immigration. As if it's not possible to acknowledge and agree with the scriptures in context, but disagree with your political agenda. Of course, your obsession with gay sex comes out once again. I already pointed out the two problems with your selective proof texting on this issue, please feel free to ignore them.
3. That's just incoherent. In context, God is establishing laws (issuing commands) to the Israelite nation. In this case God IS the power, the ruler, the king and is speaking law to His subjects. Since you reject the notion of "rules", and you're quick to write off other commands as being location/people specific, your embrace of these as imperatives is suspect at best. You have no objective logical basis to declare these commands as "Truth", and binding on all people at all times. Again, I point out the ones from your proof text link that you ignore, because they don't support your premise.
Really, I've repeatedly asked you for examples of objective, knowable Truth and don't recall you being able to provide any, perhaps I just forgot. Maybe you can name one objective, knowable Truth to jog my memory.
By all means feel free to demonstrate why these few proof texts are "Truth", while the others are not.
I'm sure I'll see that proof right after you produce the US criminal code section that criminalizes "seeking safety".
I'm sorry I can't find the words to help you understand my actual positions better.
And really, after 1,000 years, Rumi is STILL selling hundreds of thousands of books each year and you don't think that's hugely popular?
How many books do you reckon you'll be selling 1,000 years from now?
As to the "objective, knowable Truth," I've already pointed out that neither you nor I can know objectively what God's will is in any demonstrable way. Nonetheless, I don't think it's that hard of a stretch to be able to figure out many important things... ideas like do unto others as you'd have them do unto you is reasonable and understandable and what we ought to do, NOT because we find those words in the Bible, but because they make sense. They're reasonable.
Can you or I prove "objectively" we should do this? I don't know how, you certainly have never said how. But that I can't say objectively "Yes, do unto others..." doesn't mean that I can't make a reasonable case for it that many if not mosts rational adults can agree with.
Do you have "proof" that your hunches on limiting immigration are what God wants?
I didn't think so.
~Dan
I guess it depends on how many books I write.
Look you're the one claiming that these "Truths" come from God. That the words used are in fact quotes from God. It just seems reasonable that if you make s claim you should be able to demonstrate that the claim is accurate.
The difference is that I haven't made any claims about God prouncimg any "Truths" about immigration or US immigration law, therefore I have no claim to prove.
I think this whole "proving your claims" thing confuses you. The fact that you expect me to prove a claim that I didn't make, while being unwilling to prove the claims you've made certainly indicates some level of confusion about how this works.
But if you'd rather bitch about some Persian dude from thousands of years ago, instead of demonstrating the Truth of your claims, go right ahead.
But the more claims you won't/can't prove, the less intellectually honest you appear
FYI, it's not about proving " should" we "do this", it's about proving that your claims are True, and that the other proof texts that don't support your hunch are not True. .
Look, I think it is self-evident and obvious that we shouldn't be selfish or cowardly, that we should open our doors to those in need. This is my opinion, one that I learned in traditional Christian churches. If you think this is a bad idea, you are welcome to your opinion.
Dan
"Look, I think it is self-evident and obvious that we shouldn't be selfish or cowardly, that we should open our doors to those in need."
There are others that believe it is "self-evident and obvious" that should we possess the ability, desire and stones that we should take what we want whenever we want it and from anywhere we find it and too bad for those from whom we take it. Why are they wrong and you're not?
Just wondering.
Thanks Dan, I guess that means that proof of your claims is not forthcoming. If you can't be bothered to prove, or at least provide some data to support your claims, then stop being surprised at how we react.
Harm, Marshall. They're causing harm and moral, rational people nearly universally recognize causing harm to be bad.
What is surprising is when you find Christians appearing to support it.
Dan
And we're back to square one. If immigrants or relaxed immigration standards cause harm, then you would feel differently. Yet you won't prove your claim that immigrants cause zero harm.
How convenient.
I know the concept of your providing proof for claims you make is either confusing or problematic for you, but it's how life works. So, we're waiting for you to prove your claims.
Oh, before you even start, I've already brought up some data that argues against your claim.
Please prove your claim or retract it.
we're back to square one. If immigrants or relaxed immigration standards cause harm, then you would feel differently. Yet you won't prove your claim that immigrants cause zero harm.
Indeed, back to zero. IF you want to provide data that says immigrants, by nature of being immigrants and seeking refuge, jobs and safety, somehow cause harm, then provide it.
Until you do so, I have NO REASON, I have ZERO DATA to suggest that there is harm caused by people seeking safety.
You can no longer comment on this thread, Craig, until such time as you support that claim.
And I know, you're "not making that claim," but you sure are arguing for it, for someone who is not making it.
I tell you, "I have no data to support a wild ass hunch that people seeking security somehow cause harm by that seeking of security," and you respond with, "prove it." WHY do you want me to prove that which I just said I have no data to raise doubt? Is it because YOU suspect harm is caused? Why else raise the question?
You are being unnecessarily argumentative and it's tiring Craig.
You can do one of three things:
1. Say, "Here is the data that says immigrants seeking refuge causes harm," and provide actual data.
2. Say, "I'm not making that argument, I am sorry if it seemed that way. Indeed, we don't have any data that I know of to make that argument, it is a specious, stupid and possibly racist argument to make, lacking any data whatsoever, and I don't have that data and doubt that anyone does..."
or
3. Go away, you're finished here.
Nothing else, Craig, one of those three responses. Anything else will be deleted as specious and argumentative in a nonsensical manner.
And no, you have not provided any data. You are mistaken. Whatever you THINK you provided was clearly not data. Perhaps you should do some research on the matter.
In fact, you appear to have SAID that you have no data. YOU said, "I've never actually made any specific claims of harm, only asked that you support your claims."
If you provided data that supported claims of harm, wouldn't you have been making that argument?
ALL I can find that you've said is this, "I also don't see how you can continue to insist that immigrants bring zero harm, while there is ample evidence from Europe that suggests otherwise."
That isn't data. It's an empty claim. Do you understand the difference?
No need to answer that. You just have to support the claim or admit there is not reasonable data to support it and that you're just playing devil's advocate.
~Dan
Now you're just lying again, Dan. Craig isn't making the claim that "immigrants seeking refuge from harm" are causing harm. He's saying that YOU claimed "immigrants" don't cause harm. He can correct and clarify if I'm being too broad in my representation of his position, but at the same time, you're purposely and deceivingly choosing to narrow the request in order to protect your position. It's not uncommon and goes to the charge of arguing in bad faith. If you wish to defend a position, doing so in good faith means you must deal in what is actually said by those with whom you are engaged.
For example, you damn well know what is meant by the term "illegal immigrant", but you purposely and intentionally choose to play semantic games by saying "there's no such thing". You do it again in this last comment of yours by suggesting that Craig is saying "immigrants, by nature of being immigrants and seeking refuge, jobs and safety, somehow cause harm". NOBODY who supports enforcing or strengthening existing immigration laws is making that claim and you damn well know it.
"Harm, Marshall. They're causing harm and moral, rational people nearly universally recognize causing harm to be bad."
Harm's a factor in your philosophy, Dan, but not in the philosophy of those who think they are entitled to whatever they want. What makes your opinion "self-evident" and their opinion less so? As we are all stained with a sin nature, as well as a self-preservation instinct, it could be argued that it is "self-evident" that whatever one feels one should have one is entitled to have by whatever means. You do realize that for you to deny such people is seen by them as causing them harm, don't you?
You also must realize that whoever is a burden to others, even if not as a matter of conscious choice, is causing harm to those who must bear that burden on their behalf, don't you? It may be a degree of harm you personally don't find problematic, but it is harm nonetheless. Basing your philosophy on harm over God's will is just more posturing.
Craig isn't making the claim that "immigrants seeking refuge from harm" are causing harm. He's saying that YOU claimed "immigrants" don't cause harm
I know exactly what he said. What exactly I said was this:
I HAVE ZERO DATA TO ASSUME THAT THOSE SEEKING REFUGE FROM HARM CAUSE HARM.
That is a truth fact. I don't have anything to suggest to me that these refugees cause harm. I don't.
1. Now, repeat back to me what I have said.
2. Then, once you have done that, tell me what is wrong with Craig's ridiculous charges.
Two assignments for you, Marshall. Please comply or cease commenting. Anything besides these two responses will be deleted, just to keep you on task.
To help things out, though, let me offer an illustration.
I initially said that "Immigrants cause no harm." That is a fact claim. I THEN clarified it to, "I have no data that suggests immigrants/refugees cause harm," to make it more clear.
Now, this is something adult rational thinkers do. For instance, I might say, "There is NO such thing as purple unicorns in the natural world." Now, that is a fact claim, but to be precise, it is a reality claim saying, "I have no data to support the rather ridiculous sounding claim that purple unicorns exist." Sometimes, when something is so ludicrous and unbelievable on the face of it, people say, "It don't exist," rather than the more precise, "I have no data..."
Do you understand that now, with this analogy?
Dan
you damn well know what is meant by the term "illegal immigrant", but you purposely and intentionally choose to play semantic games by saying "there's no such thing".
I know damn well what it means when a fucking racist calls a black man "boy" or "nigger," to, but I won't abide by such epithets.
They are harmful, they destroy, the are stupid as sin and I won't abide them any longer.
Do you know damn well what I mean, now?
Don't bother responding to this until you've responded to the other two questions.
Craig keeps commenting with stuff other than the answers to the questions I requested he post. He has now taken to calling it cowardly that I expect him to answer the questions asked of him.
I will be closing this post, since no one is offering much in the way of constructive ideas. If you have something helpful to add, by all means, email me and I'll be glad to include it.
~Dan
Post a Comment