Damn it! THIS.
https://www-m.cnn.com/…/teen-killed-after-ice-re…/index.html
This story is why our immigration policies are immoral, criminal and an affront to human rights!
It should not be treated as a crime to move from point A to point B, especially if point A is potentially dangerous. Of course, you should move away from one place if your life or the life of your family is threatened there!
The free movement of people is a basic human right. Seeking safety in moving away from danger or threat to a safe place is a basic human right.
Our US policies are killing people, tearing apart families, terrorizing innocent, decent, hard-working people. Our policies are an affront to human rights and basic human decency. When did we become such heartless thugs, willing to send people to their deaths and stirring up fear of these darker-skinned and poorer citizens from oppressed nations to enact these immoral policies?
And, if it makes a difference to you, this is NOT a problem unique to the current president. It has been our policy way too long, Obama was doing much the same thing. It has gotten much worse under the current president, but it's not unique to him.
Let's start a movement to embrace human rights and end our terrorism and sending innocent people to their deaths.
Wake up, US! We're on the side of oppression and that ought not be.
And may God Damn our current irrational and terrorist immigration policies to hell.
Word of warning: DON'T comment on this post unless you're prepared to offer helpful changes/an end to our current deadly and anti-liberty policies and this God damned president who is making it so much worse. I will delete any xenophobic, fear-mongering, hateful, terrorist-supporting, anti-immigrant comments that attempt to defend this home-grown terroristic policy.
Fuck that shit.
164 comments:
So, in other words, you don't want actual honest debate. You want fear-mongering, hateful, terrorist-supporting, anti-American sentiment only.
Your link isn't showing anything related to a teen being deported and killed in Mexico, but if it's the story I think it is, it is not as if murderers were waiting for this kid to return in order to kill him. It, instead, would not be much different than being murdered anywhere in the world, including Democrat-controlled cities like Chicago or L.A. But hey, you go ahead and exploit the death of this kid in order to advance your nonsensical notions about open borders.
The fact is, that while you are champing at the bit to delete any comments with actual solutions or concerns, you offer nothing but to swing wide the gates without regard for who might be entering through them and the effect doing so will have on your fellow Americans, all so you can posture yourself as caring and holier than the rest of us. Emotion based responses are better than even this swill.
Laws and regulations do not constitute a denial of free movement. So you're lying yet again. I guess you can't help yourself.
I saw this tweet a few minutes after seeing Dan's blog.
"They just want to use our culture and way of life as an inroad for Islamic conquest. Islamists will use our own institutions and freedom against us. These people should have never been allowed into the West."
Does Dan consider Islamists to be far-right on the political spectrum? If so, does that affect how welcoming Dan is of them? Could Dan thrive in a place where shariah law has been put into place through immigration and higher birth rates?
~ Hiram
Hiram, by "Islamists" you mean Muslim extremists or Muslim fundamentalists? Or do you mean all Muslims?
I utterly reject the "all Muslims" grouping of those who should be banned as inherently xenophobic, racist and evil. I don't think that's what you mean, however. I'm assuming you mean Muslim fundamentalists.
Do I think Muslim fundamentalists (i.e., those who'd want to force their religion on others by weight of law) should be banned from entering the US? No. Just as I don't think Christian fundamentalists should be banned or kicked out of the US.
There are certainly those in Christianity (dominionists, amongst others, to varying degrees), who'd like to use the force of law to legislate what they perceive to be "christian" rules.
I think that such attempts are blocked by our constitution and rightly so. But if people want to believe that for themselves - christian, muslim or other fundamentalists - that is their freedom of religion to do so. BUT, we the people who value human liberty, human rights and basic moral reason should stand by our constitution and push back against those fundamentalists.
I am convinced that such fundamentalists are in an increasingly growing minority and, while their something to be wary of, I see no reason to ban them.
Should any fundamentalists convince the majority of the US (or any nation) to change our constitution, well, shame on us for letting them do so! I am convinced that the fundamentalists arguments (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) are so piss poor, irrational and immoral that they will never more win the hearts and minds of people, at least here in the US.
Now, if you are referring to Muslim extremists - those who are fine with using violence to push their cause... THOSE are the people that should be kept out. Any violent extremists, muslim background or otherwise, can rightly be kept away as a threat to others.
Are fundamentalists of all stripes on the Right side of the political spectrum? I think this is reasonably the case, yes. But we might need to hammer out what we mean by Right to be fair.
Could I thrive in a place where shariah law (muslim, christian or otherwise) has been put in place? No. Decent people of all stripes can not thrive in places where shariah law (muslim, christian or otherwise) can't abide such an approach because it is an assault on human liberty.
We have a constitution here that should prevent such a thing from happening, short of changing the constitution and, again, I'm convinced that the fundamentalist position is so pathetic that it will lose any reasonable argument.
Here is the link, Marshall...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/08/us/teen-killed-after-ice-returns-him-to-mexico/index.html?no-st=1528579408
"Cano Pacheco ran afoul of the United States' changing immigration laws. On April 24, the 19-year-old was sent back to Mexico because of misdemeanor convictions, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Customs said.
Three weeks later, he died in a country he barely knew. "
We sent him to his death. His family had LEFT Mexico because it was safer here. THIS is reasonable. THIS is moral. This should be supported as just part of the freedom of movement that all humans should enjoy and are only denied such liberty in places that embrace oppressive, fascist ideologies.
I'm open to ALL arguments that honestly seek to help the situation.
I'm not open to one fucking lie about how immigrants pose a threat to us. Such bullshit will be flushed as the excrement it is.
I'm not open to any arguments defending the denial of basic human liberties. Also bullshit.
I'm not open to any arguments that treat immigrants as criminals for being here "illegally."
Such vile, destructive, god-hating, hellacious arguments will not be allowed to be made here.
Any reasonable helpful arguments about "how do we best deal with immigration matters in a way that is not a violation of human rights?" are welcome here.
Understand?
Tread carefully.
If Jesus' parents immigrated here when he was a newborn, he would have been separated from his parents and his parents sent back to be killed.
That is bullshit and you'd recognize it if it happened to Jesus, but when it happens quite literally to the least of these, you defend it.
Bullshit.
It, instead, would not be much different than being murdered anywhere in the world, including Democrat-controlled cities like Chicago or L.A.
IF a set of parents moved from Chicago to Vermont, say, because they felt that was a safer place to move, they would have been expressing the basic human right of free movement. If that child of those parents was raised on Vermont and then got busted on a marijuana charge (another problem in this story, but a separate issue - the terrible and ineffective "war on drugs") and the police said "We're not going to charge you, but we ARE going to deport you to Chicago, those police would have been committing a human rights violation.
I'm going to say that again, read it, let it sink in and realize the awful reality of that point:
The police, in forcibly moving someone to a place they did not want to go,
would have been committing a human rights violation.
IF, having committed that human rights violation, that son was murdered in Chicago, it would be largely due to the human rights violation committed by those police.
We MUST end these human rights violation.
We MUST change our laws that allow the authorities to commit human rights violations.
I'm open to any arguments on this topic that DEAL with the topic.
ANY arguments, however, that begin with the notion that it's okay to commit human rights violations will be deleted.
Something pertinent to Dan's all vs. some Muslims question is the tendency for second-generation immigrants to get more radicalized than the ones who made the decision to move.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/13/second-generation-americans-proving-most-fruitful-/
~ Hiram
I answered your questions, Hiram. Please answer mine. What did you mean by Islamists?
Islamist = one who advocates militancy for the cause of Allah.
~ Hiram
Thanks.
Of course, anyone advocating violence should be stopped, Muslim or Christian.
Just for the record, given the hatred of the oppressors and haters, I'm treating the term, "illegal immigrants" like the racial epithet that it is, and thus, it will not be allowed in comments here. People who come here exercising the basic human liberty to move from place to place are immigrants or, if they're fleeing something, refugees. Neither immigrants nor refugees can be "illegal," since they are merely people seeking a better life.
It seems that you are suggesting that any Muslim immigrant who advocates violence should be “stopped”. Stopped from what? Stopped from engaging in violence? Stopped from entering the country? Killed?
Just curious.
Sorry, one more question. Did you actually read the entire story?
Craig, the point of the post is that we need to support human rights and oppose those who'd create policies that thwart human rights. For instance, finding helpful, positive ways of supporting reasonable immigration policies, which, by definition, do not include attempts to criminalize immigration, given that the free movement of people is a basic human right.
Do you have anything to say on the topic of the post?
To address your question:I'm opposed to any one or any groups who advocate violence or violations of human rights. We should stop people from denying human rights, including the free movement of people.
~Dan
Do you understand that? Do you agree? A simple no (if that's the case) will be enough.
So yes, of course, we should stop people from engaging in violence.
We should stop those advocating violence from entering the country.
Killing them? No, but arresting any people here who are advocating violence or engaged in acts of violence.
But this is just common sense. Why do you need to ask? (Don't bother answering.)
Yes, I read the entire story.
Now, can you affirm that the free movement of people from one place to another is a basic human right and should not be denied?
Do you agree that moving away from a place of danger to a place of more safety is a basic human right and should not be denied?
If your answers to these are No, then don't bother commenting, just go away.
I am not going to suffer fools and villains who stand against basic human rights.
Not sure why my signature ended up in the middle, but that was me.
Since when is asking questions about the post and your comments about the post “off topic”? Even if I did have comments “on topic”, you’ve already announced that you aren’t interested unless they mimic your positions.
Yes, I understand. I’m not sure there is enough content to agree or disagree with.
Think you for your clear answers to the questions.
Since you believe that these people should be “stopped”, how would you “stop” them? What criteria would you use to make the determination that a specific immigrant should be “stopped”?
Are you sure you read the entire story?
I’m asking because I’m trying to get specific details of your vague statements.
Your question about the “free movement of people”, is much too vague to try to answer it as asked. Unless you’d be willing to clarify, I just can’t in good conscience toss off a glib, simplistic answer.
I’ve never heard the concept of unlimited, unrestricted movement with no regard for anything be called a “basic human right”, so I’m not sure how to respond. First, it’s such a broad and vague concept that I think that I’d have to consider the ramifications before answering. Second, is there someplace I can find a list of all of the “basic human rights”, and who decided what they were?
I’m sorry that I’m not able to give you the unnuanced answers you would prefer, but I’m leery of agreeing to something without knowing as much as possible about what I’m agreeing with.
I’m a little curious. Are you using the term “right” (or rights) and “liberty” (or liberties) interchangeably? Or as synonymous?
"Now, can you affirm that the free movement of people from one place to another is a basic human right and should not be denied?"
Free movement of people from outside this country to within it is not denied at all. It is regulated and governed by laws and policies that, like all immigration law the world over, serve the host country's interest. This is fair, just and reasonable.
"Do you agree that moving away from a place of danger to a place of more safety is a basic human right and should not be denied?"
Moving from a place of danger to this country to escape it is not denied. It is regulated and governed by laws and policies that, like all such laws the world over, serve the host country's interest. This is fair, just and reasonable.
I'm a little curious, Craig. I've asked you clear, reasonable questions. You say you're "not able to give the un-nuanced answers" I prefer. So then, why commenting?
I'm asking reasonable questions? Do you support free movement as a natural human right? Do you support moving from a dangerous place to the available safer place of your choice as a natural human right?
If you can't answer those questions with a clear and obvious Yes, then you aren't wanting to be part of this conversation.
It's like if I were to ask you, "Are you always opposed to rape and always opposed to forced marriage?" and you couldn't answer that reasonable question... it begs the question of how reasonable and moral you are.
Marshall, I'll assume ignorance on your part this one time and explain it to you...
If an action is regulated to the point that some can't do it at all, then that is, for those people, a van.
If you were living in a desperately poor county in the US, with no prospect of a job there and, thus, reasonably wanted to move to a county where there were jobs and they denied you entrance, telling you that you had to wait in a line with no real likelihood of ever getting in, you have been banned from exercising your human liberty of free movement.
Now, I'm giving you just one chance to demonstrate you can understand...
Do you understand that this would be a restriction upon your basic human right of free movement?
(Hint: there's only one right answer.)
And you prove me right that you don't want a conversation at all, but rather total agreement regardless of whether or not what you say is true, accurate, factual or moral.
Thus, I totally understand what you're saying and what it means for those who wish to respond to it. There's no ignorance whatsoever on my part. But there is fascism and childish petulance on yours.
So here's the truth that you will no doubt delete because it destroys your position:
There are few, if any, liberties in this nation that are not regulated, restricted or made to abide some governing law or policy. Go ahead and try to name one. This so-called "basic human right of free movement" is impeded, regulated, restricted and even denied in all sorts of way for actual citizens of this country. My "right" is infringed with every stop sign, traffic light, speed limit I encounter while driving. It is denied with every property border, fence or wall in front of me as I move about. I cannot freely move through your house to get where I want to go and I have no "right" to hide myself from whatever danger pursues me without YOUR permission to do so. The same is true of our nation's borders and immigration laws. You seem to want to pretend that all laws, borders and policies are subordinate to one's claim of escape from danger. If this were true, then this discussion would not even take place. But even in cases where people are truly pursued, or have truly been oppressed, their "human right of free movement" is impeded until their claim can be confirmed. THAT'S what our laws are for. And as I said, even citizens are threatened with having their "right to free movement" denied if they break our laws. Yet, you don't believe foreigners are to abide our laws when THEY claim they are endangered or oppressed, simply because they say they are.
Now...as I've enlightened you on reality, go ahead and delete me instead of trying to explain how my answer isn't the right one. I dare you to try, coward.
Dan, you have a history of getting upset when you claim that we’ve misrepresented you, yet you get equally frustrated when I try to ask you questions so I can understand what you are trying to communicate.
Please pick one, then let me know which you’d prefer.
In this case you’re asking questions whose premises are so vague and broad that agreement can be twisted into anything you want it to mean.
I’m commenting to try to understand what you are actually advocating.
If trying to understand you is a problem, I’ll just respond based on your vague, unsupported, generalizations. Just don’t bitch if you don’t like it.
Or, you could just say that you’re not interested in answering questions and save everyone a significant amount of time and energy.
Marshall, even though you are not answering the reasonable question put to you, I'm leaving your comment because your examples reveal the rational and moral hole in your irrational and immoral argument.
The stop sign, the speed limit, the personal property boundary ARE all there and entirely legitimate... they are regulations to protect FROM HARM.
Do you understand that reality?
We have laws to protect people from harm.
The immigrant moving from point A to point B is causing no one any harm.
Now, I insist that if you want to say anything more here, you need to answer this question:
Do you recognize that significant distinction?
We can't criminalize behavior that impedes on human choice outside of that which causes harm, not rationally and morally.
One chance.
One chance, Marshall. Answer the questions put to you.
BEGIN there, and we can discuss beyond that, if you're connected to reality. I'm talking about establishing principles. These are basic rational moral principles we should be able to agree upon. But you tell me.
Answer the questions. Period. Or move on.
Craig, are you honestly telling me you do not understand what my simple question means?
When I ask,
Do you support the free movement of people from point A to point B?
...you don't understand the question?
If so, then just say that.
Say, "I don't understand the question, Dan... could you explain what you mean by it?"
...and I'd be glad to help you understand what seems to me to be blindingly obvious question.
You say it's vague. It's broad, yes. I'm establishing principles.
Do you agree with the principle that free movement is a basic human right, in general?
If I asked you if lying or slavery is wrong, in principle, you might be able to think of some exceptions, but you could probably agree to the principle, right?
Bit, if you're truly confused, then say so.
I did say that. I asked you for clarification, so far you’ve not given it.
But, to be clear on my end. I understand the question, I don’t understand what exactly your made up term “free movement of people from a to b” means. That’s why I’ve asked you to clarify. Just like I asked you to clarify how you’d “stop” those who want to do harm.
Yes, I’d love to have you explain what you mean, it’s why I asked questions to try to get you to clarify, rather than to assume or to try to read your mind.
You say you are trying to “establish a principle”, if you’d like to do that as opposed to simply asserting a vague, undefined, amorphous concept that would be greatly appreciated.
If you could do so, and address the specific areas where I’m trying to understand you, that would be especially appreciated.
I’ll close with this. It’s strange that your response to my sincere attempt to understand you and to be able to answer based on a clear understanding of the terms you’ve coined, is not met with appreciation for trying, but with something else entirely.
Of course, slavery, is a term with a relatively specific and defined meaning so being able to start from that point would help.
What I’m trying to do is to get to the point where you would articulate a clear defined explanation of this concept that would allow both of us the benefit of a defined starting point.
So, please, don’t simply assert your “principle”, actually define and establish what you mean.
Okay, so YOU DO NOT understand the question. Got it.
What I mean is,
I. IF you, Craig, are in ONE PLACE (say the slums of Calcutta, India, a place with no jobs and no prospect for jobs and you're starving there)...
Understand so far?
II. And you, Craig, would like to move to ANOTHER PLACE (say, Louisville, KY, where there are plenty of entry level, grunt jobs available... jobs you could be hired for and avoid starvation)....
Understand so far?
III. That you, Craig, could decide to move there to get employed if you wanted to, and that you, Craig, should not be exercising the free movement that is a basic human liberty.
Do you understand the question now?
It really is quite simple, I'm just asking if you think humans should be free to be self determining and to move from one place to another, if they so choose and they're not harming anyone by doing so (for instance, not breaking into someone's private property)?
Not sure what you don't understand about the question, but maybe that helps.
If you still don't understand, then just say so. Say, "I still don't understand, Dan. Help please..." and perhaps explain what YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND about the question.
I don’t understand what exactly your made up term “free movement of people from a to b” means.
It's the globally recognized notion of Free Movement. It's not some obscure idea. Are you honestly saying you are not familiar with the philosophical notion of human rights including the right to Free Movement?
Now, I will allow that, thus far, "free movement" has typically defined in many places (not all, but many, like the UN's charter for human rights) as "free movement within a nation... but not beyond..." but I'm saying that this does not go far enough, as there is no significant difference in saying "You can't move from Kentucky to Indiana" and "You can't move from Louisville, Kentucky, USA to Berlin, Germany..." Both are limitations upon from movement from one place to another... basically, it's a rejection of the human right to be self determining. (Are you familiar with that notion? If not, feel free to look either of these up... they're basic building blocks of the free and civilized world. It's not like I'm making this stuff up out of whole cloth.)
Here's another source talking about the idea...
https://theconversation.com/do-we-all-have-a-right-to-cross-borders-69835
clear understanding of the terms you’ve coined
So, maybe that IS it... you're just not familiar with at least this part of the globally recognized notion of human liberty. Hint: I did not coin the term. It's at least as old as the UN Charter on Human Rights (1948), but I'd argue it's older than that. The Magna Carta (1215), for instance, at least touches on the notion.
Have you heard of the Magna Carta?
My point III, above, should have read...
III. That you, Craig, could decide to move there to get employed if you wanted to, and that you, Craig, should not be STOPPED FROM exercising the free movement that is a basic human liberty.
Or here is another example of me explaining what I mean by free movement (again, not my term):
If YOU, Craig, are in Louisville, KY and
YOU, Craig, would like to move to Phoenix, AZ
That YOU, Craig, should be free to do so.
You are a self determining human being and no one is in a position to tell you, "Craig, you can't move from Louisville to Phoenix..." Can you imagine the outrage you'd have (Good God, PLEASE tell me you'd be outraged if someone were telling you - or anyone, that they can't move from one city to another and be a self-determining human being!?) if someone tried to stop you from doing that? Why would you be outraged? Because the right to self determination and the subsequent freedom of movement is a basic human right, recognized the world over by reasonable people.
Or, if your neighbor would like to move from your city to London, England, they should have the liberty to be self determining and do so.
If you're not understanding yet, I could provide 100 more examples of what it means to move from one place to another, but I really don't think you're not understanding. So, please, stop wasting both our times and just answer the question.
Also, DON'T bother going to idiotic places. Don't say, "So, the prisoner who is in jail for murder should be free to move to freedom in Tahiti..." because that is not getting at the principle I'm talking about and it should be clear to anyone who isn't being idiotic in their approach to the question of human liberty.
Or, don't bother saying, "So, if someone wants to move from calcutta to Louisville, then I should be forced to pay for them to travel!??" That would be another idiotic side track.
I'm talking about normal people with the wherewithal (one way or another) to move from one public location in the world to another public location. This, of course, puts to the sword Marshall's idiotic dodge, "But what if someone wants to move from one place to YOUR HOUSE!?? Aha! Gotcha!!" No. No, you don't. (those weren't Marshall's words, but it was his tack, wholly missing the point).
Again, I don't think either of you are so stupid that you don't understand this obvious question about human liberty that is part and parcel of the history of free republics. Now, whether or not you two are too delusional to understand the point... that remains to be seen. I'm just noting that I'm not wasting time trying to explain things to delusional people, which is why I'm trying to see if you two can agree to basic principles that are reasonable and part and parcel of the common notion of Human Rights.
Look, Craig, earlier, you stated...
I’m asking because I’m trying to get specific details of your vague statements.
I'm asking you a question now:
When I say, "Do you think a person should have the liberty to move from one place to another place?"
WHAT SPECIFICALLY is vague about it? Are you thinking I'm asking the question with the intent to say, "SO, you think a person should be free to move from Louisville to the fifth ring of Saturn?!" or "...to move from prison to freedom in Tahiti?!" Do you REALLY think that's what I'd try to be saying? What specifically is vague about that question?
Free to move from one place to another place.
THAT is vague?
Likewise, when I say,
If people feel threatened in one place, they should have the freedom to move to another place that they deem to be safer...
WHAT SPECIFICALLY is vague about it? That I don't specify WHERE they might be moving from? And you're just wanting me to plug in some specific locations?
If I had said, "people should have the right to move from Bogota, Colombia, where they have been threatened to Louisville, KY, where they think they'll be safer..." it would have been clear, but you're somehow not able to understand the principle "from a place of perceived danger to a place of perceived safety..."?
I don't think you're that obtuse.
But please clarify if you are. Just say, "Yes, I am that obtuse that I need SPECIFIC locations plugged in so I can understand a principle..."
Another question: If I ask you about from/to a specific place, are you able to extend that to the principle "From one place to another place..." OR, will you always require specific locations?
Put another way: are you unaware of the notion of holding PRINCIPLES to establish ideals/practices, so as not to need to ask every time a new location comes into question?
Thank you for the extensive response, it would have been more helpful had you just answered the questions that I asked as they were designed to try to get at the specific areas I have didn’t understand. Also, I so appreciate your condescending tone, it makes trying to understand you so much more pleasant.
Since it appears that you won’t be answering the specific questions I asked, and that you’re going to demand that I answer yours based only on your recent responses, I’ll go ahead and give you an answer. But, given the fact that you’ve just said that you mean something different that how this term has been defined elsewhere I’m still uneasy.
“Do you think a person should have the liberty to move from one place to another place?"”
In a broad, vague sense I would generally agree that people have the liberty (within limits) to move from place to place.
I’d ask more questions, but it’s clear that getting answers to the questions I’ve alredy asked doesn’t fit with your agenda and that dialogue is not what you’re looking for.
But thank you for the overly long, condescending, uninformative, response.
I feel compelled to point out the flaws in your “illustration”.
1. If everyone in Calcutta decided to move to Louisville to avail themselves of the plethora of jobs available, there would quickly be millions more poor Indians in KY than there are jobs.
2. By encouraging Indians to fill those jobs you discourage or block people from places like TN who might want them.
3. You’re assuming that the Indians are qualified and able to fill these jobs.
FYI, your assumption that my confusion arose from a lack of “locations” could have been dispelled in a couple of ways that probably would have saved you a lot of writing.
1. You could have looked at the questions I asked and you would have been able to see that location wasn’t where my desire for clarification was.
2. You could have asked.
As often happens, you chose a different route, which just wasted a bunch of your time.
Again you lie about what I've said after deleting my comment, because you know it destroys your position. But let's look at what YOU'VE said:
"no one is in a position to tell you, "Craig, you can't move from Louisville to Phoenix...""
Both those cities are in the same country. Your example, like pretty much every analogy you've ever brought forth to make a point, doesn't make your case because the movement is still within the same country.
"Because the right to self determination and the subsequent freedom of movement is a basic human right, recognized the world over by reasonable people."
Actual reasonable people, while perhaps generally agreeing with the principle of freedom of movement, understand and support the need for laws governing movement between nations. More precisely, they understand, support and DEMAND laws governing immigration into THEIR country.
"Or, if your neighbor would like to move from your city to London, England, they should have the liberty to be self determining and do so."
They do, and they can...so long as they satisfy England's criteria for immigrating into England...which they have just as we do and as every other nation on earth does for the benefit and protection of their people...as reasonable people expect and demand of their government.
"If you're not understanding yet, I could provide 100 more examples of what it means to move from one place to another..."
...at least 99 of which won't be any better than those you've provided so far, as none of them comes close to addressing the flaws of your position. So far all you've done is to re-iterate this principle of the liberty to move about freely, which is not in question or even at issue given your post.
"Also, DON'T bother going to idiotic places. Don't say, "So, the prisoner who is in jail for murder should be free to move to freedom in Tahiti...""
Neither Craig nor I have suggested such an idiotic hypothetical. That's YOUR gig, not ours.
"Or, don't bother saying, "So, if someone wants to move from calcutta to Louisville, then I should be forced to pay for them to travel!??""
Neither Craig nor I have suggested such an idiotic hypothetical. That's YOUR gig, not ours. Though given time, I've no doubt you'd suggest something very much like it.
"I'm talking about normal people with the wherewithal (one way or another) to move from one public location in the world to another public location."
So are we.
"This, of course, puts to the sword Marshall's idiotic dodge, "But what if someone wants to move from one place to YOUR HOUSE!?? Aha! Gotcha!!" No. No, you don't. (those weren't Marshall's words, but it was his tack, wholly missing the point)."
That bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to anything I've said, suggested or even hinted accidentally. And since you've dishonorably deleted my logical, reasonable and intelligent comments based on facts, there's no way you can prove I'm as silly and chuckle-headed in my examples and analogies as you are. My examples were absolute parallels to the whiny arguments you tried to assert were justifications for attacking our immigration laws and regulations as immoral and deadly.
"If people feel threatened in one place, they should have the freedom to move to another place that they deem to be safer..."
They do have that freedom, but it doesn't mean they can move to another place without regard for the laws governing their entry to that safer place. That safer place is safer in part because of those laws governing immigration. It's safer because it doesn't let people in just because they claim to be fleeing a dangerous place. It's safer because the laws of that safe place either confirm the claim...and let the person in...or find there's no evidence the claim is true...and deny entry. It's safer because after letting the immigrant enter, it demands the immigrant not behave in a manner that makes the safe place less safe and more like the hell hole whence he came. It's safer because the laws governing immigration help keep it safer.
So instead of deleting my comments like the coward you are and then lying about what I said like the liar you are, why not leave the comments up and actually deal with what I actually said in a manner that makes it crystal clear to any who might someday read this stuff? Then, if I'm truly being delusional, it will be obvious to everyone, even those who are generally "on my side" of the discussion.
Or should I drop a few f-bombs to make sure we're on the same level?
Art, thanks for reinforcing what I’m trying to get Dan to explain. Clearly there is (on some level) a right to move from place to place, I don’t think anyone denies that. But, in the context Dan has placed it, and given the reality of the world we live in it’s pointless to simply assert something so vague and broad.
For example, Dan said we should “stop” certain people from entering the US, but when asked for details we get nothing.
My intent is to address this elsewhere, because I see little point in trying to dance around the random and unpredictable deletion of comments (yes with the inevitable mid characterization) and the lack of definition of terms.
"I'm a little curious, Craig. I've asked you clear, reasonable questions. You say you're "not able to give the un-nuanced answers" I prefer. So then, why commenting?"
Ignoring the bizarre grammar, I'm attempting to discern what you are advocating for so that I can address your actual position, rather than a misinterpretation of your position. Wouldn't you prefer that I address your actual position?
"I'm asking reasonable questions?"
I'm sure you think you are. I'm trying to gain a more fully orbed understanding of your position, before answering. Is that somehow wrong?
"Do you support free movement as a natural human right?"
Given your unwillingness to define "natural human rights", and to point out where I can find such a list and who decided what was on the list, I'm not sure I can yet. Given your unwillingness to define the scope of what you believe "free movement" (and your continued changing of the term you use), it is difficult for me to support something that isn't defined. Do you often support things that aren't defined? I know you posted some definitions, but then you acknowledged that you were using a different definition. Could you just provide a simple statement of the definition you are using?
"Do you support moving from a dangerous place to the available safer place of your choice as a natural human right?"
As you've stated the premise, no.
"Craig, are you honestly telling me you do not understand what my simple question means?"
NO, I'm honestly saying that I don't understand how you are defining the terms used in your questions.
"Understand so far?"
I understand your condescending and simplistic example. I still don't have a clue how you are defining your terms.
"Do you understand the question now?"
I've always understood the question, I still don't understand the definitions you've chosen to attach to the terms you're using. Do you understand that now?
"Have you heard of the Magna Carta?"
"WHAT SPECIFICALLY is vague about it?"
Nothing. What is vague is your terminology and how you are defining it.
"WHAT SPECIFICALLY is vague about it? That I don't specify WHERE they might be moving from? And you're just wanting me to plug in some specific locations?"
Specifically it's vague that you won't define the terms you use. What you mean by them, and how you see these concepts working in the real world?
"Put another way: are you unaware of the notion of holding PRINCIPLES to establish ideals/practices, so as not to need to ask every time a new location comes into question?"
I am aware of that notion. Are you aware that simply asserting a principle that YOU personally hold, isn't the same as demonstrating the objective existence of an actual universal principle? Are you aware that asserting, but not defining a "principle" isn't a good way to get people to agree with you?
I believe that this will provide the answers to all the questions you've asked, so as to eliminate the possibility of you complaining that I won't answer your questions.
I thought this might help you with identifying what hasn't been answered.
What criteria would you use to make the determination that a specific immigrant should be “stopped”?
Are you sure you read the entire story?
I’m asking because I’m trying to get specific details of your vague statements.
Your question about the “free movement of people”, is much too vague to try to answer it as asked. Unless you’d be willing to clarify, I just can’t in good conscience toss off a glib, simplistic answer.
I’ve never heard the concept of unlimited, unrestricted movement with no regard for anything be called a “basic human right”, so I’m not sure how to respond. First, it’s such a broad and vague concept that I think that I’d have to consider the ramifications before answering. Second, is there someplace I can find a list of all of the “basic human rights”, and who decided what they were?
I’m a little curious. Are you using the term “right” (or rights) and “liberty” (or liberties) interchangeably? Or as synonymous?
I'm guessing that you can't actually prove that any of the made up arguments you summarily dismiss are actually "god-hating", but seeing you try would be amusing.
Quick answers to some of your questions, ridiculous though they may be.
1. When I use words I typically mean them in the sense of the normal ordinary English definition of the word.
2. Thus, by right or human right I mean that term as it is normally defined.
3. Thus by Liberty I mean that term as it is normally defined.
4. Thus when I say yes I have read the whole article I mean that I have read the whole article.
5. Thus, when I say "move from here to there" I mean it in just the normal, common usage of the words or term.
Now do you understand that when you ask incredibly obvious questions or repeat questions that have already been answered clearly and directly that you come across as a grade school level jerk? And when you repeat the same questions - especially when they've already been answered - you come across as an ignorant prick, a childish troll, a superficial piece of shit?
Please answer these last two questions before making any other comments. A simple yes or no will do.
I understand that you think that, but the fact that you’ve refused to define the terms in the makes me wonder why.
I I haven’t repeated questions you’ve answered.
But even if I have, you do it all the time. I guess you don’t apply the same standards to yourself.
I note that you skipped a couple of questions.
1. Except you’ve already said that you mean something other than what other people mean when you are using these terms, why do hesitant to join st clarify what you mean?
2. I never asked you what “human right” meant. Maybe that’s part of the problem.
3. I didn’t ask what “Liberty” meant, I asked an entirety different question.
4. I was just trying to get you on record, thanks.
5. Once again, I never specifically asked what “move from here to there” meant.
But other than that..,
It’s also disingenuous to ignore the fact that once you combine words, the combination of words takes on a meaning separate from the individual meanings of the individual words.
Just as an example, when one uses the term holy spirit both the word holy, and the word spirit retain their individual dictionary definitions. Yet the term holy spirit means something entirely distinct from the individual definition of each word.
Well I am not sure what exactly the reason is, there must be a reason why Dan is so hesitant and is going to so much effort to avoid defining, explaining, and delineating the meanings and limits of these terms and concepts.
Good God, man, the notion of human rights is not a secret that is deeply hidden except for dark corners of liberal dungeons.
1. You asked several times if I'd read the article. Answered the first time.
2. You asked about what I meant by these incredibly common terms at least in the Free World. I gave no indication of meaning anything other than what was commonly meant by those common terms.
3. The one exception was when I noted that free movement typically is limited to within one's own Nation. I made it clear that I was making an exception to the common term in that case and explained why and I cited an article that gave further support for the point.
This is why I give up talking to you all. It becomes too meta. I have to explain what I meant by Common terms... I have to clarify that when you took me to mean A, that I did NOT mean A but I meant B. It just becomes too much work to help you understand when especially at the end y'all still just generally do not understand.
Good luck.
And, you have no interest in helping us understand.
Craig, I've spent years explaining things to you and been met with years of misunderstandings. Misunderstandings and antagonistic attacks of reasonable, moral positions. Misunderstandings about the nature of reality and basic facts. Misrepresentations of my motives and meanings. I've tried to explain. You don't understand.
No doubt, some part of that is on me. I'm not a perfect man and no doubt am not the best at explaining my positions. However, people who are not antagonistic towards progressive, Christian values (i.e., the values actually taught by Jesus) as understood in progressive and anabaptist traditions don't have the problems understanding my intent or meaning, my motives or clarifications, so some part of it is due to the mindset of many conservative/fundamentalist types and I just don't know how to bridge that gap.
But Lord knows, I've tried. So, your "you have no interest in helping us...," is exposed as yet another false claim based upon (being generous) simple ignorance/lack of understanding.
Peace.
This in the news today:
Immigration judges generally cannot consider domestic and gang violence as grounds for asylum,
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions
said Monday in a ruling that could affect large numbers of Central Americans who have increasingly turned to the United States for protection.
Already, getting in was just an impossibility for many people from many places (often poor people with brown skin, with this current administration, especially). This evil administration is saying, "To hell with the poor and those whose lives are threatened. THAT does not justify us deigning to consider helping you out."
This administration and its irrational and immoral supporters is saying No, you can NOT move freely from place to place.
This group is saying, NO, EVEN IF your life is threatened, to hell with you. Fuck off and die.
Jesus, on the other hand says,
"Woe to you who fail to take care of the poor, the needy, those in distress, those in danger. It will be hell for you.
For when you didn't do it for the poor brown folk, for women, children, babies and people in danger,
you DID NOT DO IT FOR ME."
That is a helluva a place for people who self-identify as "Christ-ians" to land.
I pity those who can't understand this basic human liberty. This basic Christian decency.
But I don't pity them so much as to take their side against those who are poor, marginalized, oppressed, ripped from their families, imprisoned unjustly and otherwise molested by oppressors.
How long, Oh Lord?
"Gang-related fights are now a near-daily occurrence at Wirt, where a small group of suspected MS-13 members at the overwhelmingly Hispanic school in Prince George’s County throw gang signs, sell drugs, draw gang graffiti and aggressively recruit students recently arrived from Central America, according to more than two dozen teachers, parents and students. Most of those interviewed asked not to be identified for fear of losing their jobs or being targeted by MS-13... Nearly a dozen parents told The Post that they were worried about gang activity at the school, which is 10 miles from the White House. Many said they were intent on transferring their kids. Several said they were scared their children would be killed."
-- Hiram, quoting Washington Post
Gentlemen, I said at the outset of this post that I'm not interested in attacks, I'm not interested in those who are blaming immigrants for what other immigrants might have done. I'm not interested in endless questions about definitions or spending TOO much time in explaining your misunderstandings to you. I'm very welcome to positive suggestions to make America safe again, to find positive solutions for immigration questions. Sending people back to be killed, ripping apart families, kidnapping children and placing them in determent camps, terrorizing innocent hard-working decent immigrants... NONE of these are rational or moral and I'm not interested in arguments for continuing with immoral or irrational arguments for terrorism and against human rights.
I gave you two MORE than enough time to help you understand this, but still you post off topic comments.
Again: Looking for positive helpful approaches, solutions to immigration. If you have anything to say that is helpful, you may.
Hiram, this comment you just made is the same sort of irrational and off topic point that these other two fellas just bathe in.
You can't blame the VAST majority of immigrants for the bad behavior of a few. Instead, you address the bad behavior of the few WITH those who are behaving badly. This is just rational.
By all measures, immigrants are MORE law-abiding, not less, than "natives," so it's just not rational to say, "Hey, here in this school, there are people behaving badly and they are immigrants, so we shouldn't allow immigrants from Central America in so much!" which is how these sorts of stories are too often used. Not saying that YOU are using it that way, but that's how these stories are being used.
Pointing out that story does not address the topic of this post. This post is asking the question: How can we change our policies so that we quit attacking immigrants, quit terrorizing immigrants, quit deporting (actually or de facto) immigrants who were just hard working people seeking a good life who moved from one place to another quite rationally and morally?
I know too many people (first, second and third hand) whose lives are being terrorized by US policies that are irrational and immoral. It's time for a change.
It's not blaming that Hiram, or either Craig or I, is doing. It's pointing out what you refuse to recognize...that what you demand leads to incidents as that which Hiram presented. Immigration policies currently in place, and those amended according to Trump administration efforts, are designed to prevent such things from occurring as a result of such people entering the country through refugee programs, human smuggling, visa overstays and other forms of unauthorized entry that YOUR position only complicates, confounds and compounds.
I'm leaving this ridiculous and false attack claim, Marshall, just by way of demonstrating the moral and rational bankruptcy of your hunches...
IF we argue that it's okay to try to attempt to lessen violence by banning/limiting immigrants (because some minor fraction of immigra8misbehave)
THEN we should also ban/limit white conservative males because some fraction of them misbehave.
Blaming a group for the actions of a few is morally monstrous and rationally inept.
And when we do it towards people of color, where there is an ugly racist history of blaming them all is just evil.
Stop endorsing evil.
Now you're done with off topic attack/slander comments.
A few positive suggestions.
1. As we work to control our border, add additional controlled crossing points that will allow those crossing on foot to avail themselves of entry points without having to add significant distance to their journey.
2. Engage in public/private/ONG partnerships that will provide safe havens in countries where a high degree of danger exists.
3. Implement a targeted effort to improve living conditions in countries with high numbers of people who want to immigrate.
4. Implement a more accurate/faster screening system.
5. Eliminate quotas based on country of origin.
6. Work with other countries to facilitate spreading out immigration.
7. Base immigration policy on evaluation of individual situations, rather than broad group based policy.
8. Establish a four pronged system to effectively deal with different types of immigrants. 1. Highly skilled immigrants, 2. Refugees, 3. Lower skilled immigrants, 4. Criminals/terrorists.
9. Stop any policies that protect or give sanctuary to those immigrants who have committed crimes in this country.
10. Establish an immigration status that will allow a level of legal integration into society, but that defers the possibility of citizenship out for an extended period of time.
11. Anyone who lies about their status, age, or any material fact that would give them an advantage to immigrate, will be permanently blocked from access to the US.
I could be wrong, but I’m thinking this represents at least 10 more positive suggestions than Dan has come up with.
Maybe nine if you count his vague and undetailed claim to want to “stop” people he deems undesirable.
I know you’ve said you’re not interested in many things, but proof of this statement seems like a reasonable request.
“Blaming a group for the actions of a few is morally monstrous and rationally inept.“
I’m unaware of any comments in this thread that have done this, please correct me.
It seems as though acknowledging and screening for criminals, terrorists and others who are attempting to gain entry for less than positive purpose of this, is simply reasonable and prudent. Unfortunately, I am unaware of any way to screen out the bad guys,, without screening everyone.
I was hoping you’d share some details about how you would do it, unfortunately that seems to be unlikely.
You’ll note that Dan was clear that we should “stop” certain people from entering the country, but entirely silent about how he’d accomplish that feat.
Is it possible that he realizes that the only way to accomplish that is to screen people? Is it also possible that he realizes that the only to screen people is to control where they enter the country? Is it possible that he realizes that the screening process may require that some people might be inconvenienced, possibly even temporarily detained while the screening is taking place?
Ultimately I think he realizes that the only way to “stop” people you want to “stop”, looks much like what he rails against and doesn’t want to say so publicly.
Whoops
Good God, Craig. You are a little boy, in your conversations.
I've been quite clear over the years that I'm fine with rules regarding immigration. I'm fine with checks. Of course, I am, I never have said otherwise.
And of course, I am fine with verifying someone's background (systems are already in place to do this and I've never criticized this and been quite clear, repeatedly, that of course I am fine with it. Why wouldn't I be?) AND if it turns out that Julian Smythee from Denmark is part of the "I HATE THE US and WANT TO SEE THEM ALL BURN," then saying, NO, you can't come here.
The point has always been that, for everyone else - for those who are not promoting evil, harm, death, murder, etc, but who only want to come here from there because they think it will be safer for them, for their children, that they'll have a better living situation or improve their economic status - that we have no reason to block them. ESPECIALLY for those who perceive their lives, security, economic well-being are at risk, because, WHY WOULD WE? Isn't it a basic human liberty to move from one place to another ESPECIALLY if your life is at risk?
YES, it is a basic human liberty. It's called self determination.
Are you familiar with the basic human liberty known as Self Determination?
So, do you recognize now what I mean by Stop? That I mean just what I've ALWAYS advocated and what should be clear?
Please answer so I know if you understand what you should have understood.
Also, please answer if you recognize why I'm finding it just too much trouble to try talking with you? Because you seem to be asking deliberately obtuse questions, not reasonable ones.
Like this...
“Blaming a group for the actions of a few is morally monstrous and rationally inept.“
I’m unaware of any comments in this thread that have done this, please correct me.
I said that in response to Hiram's quote that hints at it and Marshall, who confirms it, when he said...
It's not blaming that Hiram, or either Craig or I, is doing. It's pointing out what you refuse to recognize...
that what you demand leads to incidents as that which Hiram presented.
"What I demand" is that IF people are simply seeking safety/a better life and are NOT part of groups that want to cause harm, then we have no reason to deny them that safety/security.
When you say, "LOOK, SOME immigrants kill people..." My response is, SO the fuck WHAT?
SOME white Christians kill people. Some Catholics kill people. SOME OF ALL GROUPS kill people. BUT, we do not punish all the people in the group because what some minority does. THAT is precisely what you are doing when you advocate having more stringent/strident/limitations on Latinos because SOME Latinos misbehave. How is it not?
ONE QUESTION that I will entertain an answer for:
WHY bring up the fact that some immigrants kill people (or otherwise misbehave) IF the point is "...AND SO, we should limit the flow of all immigrants..."?
And please follow up with this answer:
If SOME White Christians are part of racist groups that might cause harm or oppression to black folk, Arabs, Mexicans, etc, should we banish all white Christians from our nation? Should we investigate all White Christians as potential racist oppressors?
The answer is, of course, NO. So, the question to answer is not that, but this:
what is the difference between why say NO to increased interrogation and suspicion of white Christians but
the YES to increased interrogation, suspicion and limitations on Latinos?
Beyond those two questions, the purpose of this post is to look at positive changes/rules to help make immigration better for those seeking safety/better lives.
It appears that you mean by “stop”, pretty much what I was hoping your answer would have been the first time you asked. But, you seem to be saying that by “stop” you mean that a system much like the one that exists in every country in the world is needed. That border crossings should be limited to specific places to facilitate the screening process, and that crossing elsewhere should be prevented. In essence, what most of would like to see. An immigration system that manages the flow of immigrants through defined points, combing security with access.
This little rant makes we wonder why you didn’t just answer the question when it was asked dozens of comments ago instead of aggressively avoiding it.
You’ve left out a fairly important aspect, in order for this screening you claim to support, you would have to screen everyone trying to cross the border.
So, how do we do that? What possible way could there be to regulate when and where people cross the border and go through a screening process? What incentive do people have to go through the screening process, when folk like you are actively trying to help them avoid being screened.
You can’t advocate for open borders, and universal screening at the same time.
Of course, had you just answered the questions the first time they were asked, so much of the communication problem would have been avoided. Clearly you not answering is my fault.
“WHY bring up the fact that some immigrants kill people (or otherwise misbehave) IF the point is "...AND SO, we should limit the flow of all immigrants..."? “
Because the point is (at least the point I’m making), is that we should treat immigrants as individuals and prevent those individuals who are a threat from entering.
“If SOME White Christians are part of racist groups that might cause harm or oppression to black folk, Arabs, Mexicans, etc, should we banish all white Christians from our nation? Should we investigate all White Christians as potential racist oppressors?“
If a significant percentage of your hypothetical “racist white christiams” were actively engaged in a worldwide war against other groups, then it would be reasonable to scrutinize people in that group more closely to weed out the individuals who are dangerous. Of course, no one is actually advocating banning ALL Hispanics because MS13 is a bunch of evil humans. I’ve asked you multiple times to demonstrate from the US code where there is a specific law banning entire groups of people based on race/skin color/religion.
Once again, as long as you insist on dealing with people as groups rather than individuals, you have problems.
Saying that “all Muslim terrorists” should be kept from immigration, is not the same as saying “all Muslims”.
“what is the difference between why say NO to increased interrogation and suspicion of white Christians but
the YES to increased interrogation, suspicion and limitations on Latinos?”
Primarily because I haven’t said either of those things, and I’m not aware of anyone who has. But, even if there is someone making the claims you allege, why should I be responsible for what someone else says? If you want to point out what I’ve said, I’ll answer for that, but put away the broad brush.
“Beyond those two questions, the purpose of this post is to look at positive changes/rules to help make immigration better for those seeking safety/better lives.”
And perhaps you’ll acknowledge that I’ve done that.
you seem to be saying that by “stop” you mean that a system much like the one that exists in every country in the world is needed.
My God, Craig, you are not seriously this uninformed, are you?
Most nations do NOT have a system in place that stops bad actors from entering (which I support) and lets the others come in (especially, those seeking a better/safer life) unimpeded. MOST nations stop many, many, most who try to enter, even though they've done nothing wrong and are only seeking safety. Hell, I'm relatively sure (not sure if it can be proven) that most people seeking asylum aren't even allowed in most nations.
You DO recognize this reality, don't you?
Perhaps that's the problem. Perhaps you blindly and naively think "Oh, yes, all those who are merely seeking a better life DO get to enter safer, more secure nations..." and thus, are confused by the actions of those like us who are fighting for justice and to save lives (as seen in this news story).
You can’t advocate for open borders, and universal screening at the same time.
Good Lord, man. Yes, of course you can! I'm doing it. Saying, "Screen for bad actors, let the others in" does that.
A call for "open borders" is not a call to let rapists and murderers and terrorists in.
Jesus Christ, you ARE NOT this daft! I can't believe you're truly this obtuse, Craig. What does that leave? That you're being deliberately provocative just acting as a troll? Knowing that this is what Russians do, I'm beginning to wonder.
Really, most nation don’t have a system that screens those who wish to enter and some criteria for determining who is allowed to enter and who isn’t? Every country I’ve been to has done just that. You may disagree with the criteria, but the systems are similar.
If you have open borders, how do you screen? For screwing to take place, you have to have t people in places where they can be screened, it’s not that hard.
What you seem to be advocating for is no limits (except safety) for immigration, which is an different topic entirely.
Clearly you can’t be advocating for millions of immigrants to be invited into the US year after year with no limits? I don’t know how it is in the bucolic little dorf if Louisville, but here in the people’s republic we don’t have enough: jobs, housing stock, or money to assimilate snother million or ten million people.
I realize that the economy is doing well and unemployment is historically low, but seriously you’re talking about a virtual suicide pact.
Maybe part of the problem is that you’re not particularly concerned with what I’m actually saying preferring to deal with what you’d like me to be saying.
FYI, just to let you save face, just consider any questions I ask to be rhetorical.
Yes, now that I've dealt with your rather obtuse questions/concerns, thank you for finally addressing the point of this post, Craig. I can agree with much of what you say in your suggestions.
For instance, this...
6. Work with other countries to facilitate spreading out immigration.
Yes, spreading out immigration in a more equitable manner would be helpful.
The US, for instance, is one of the most/the most wealth nation in the world and has a very large population and space available, AND a need for more workers. Yet, it ranks at number 65 of the nations with the largest percentage of immigrants...
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-countries-have-the-most-immigrants/
So, being so wealthy and having the space and the jobs to spare, spreading out immigrants to have more in the US would be a reasonably equitable idea. So yes, I agree with this point, especially.
Or this one...
8. Establish a four pronged system to effectively deal with different types of immigrants. 1. Highly skilled immigrants, 2. Refugees, 3. Lower skilled immigrants, 4. Criminals/terrorists.
That might be helpful, IF you are talking about "effectively dealing" with different types of immigrants to mean to do so in a way that helps those most in need. IF you are talking about FURTHER screening out/limiting the liberty of those in the most need, that is NOT a way to help make things better for immigrants and the world.
9. Stop any policies that protect or give sanctuary to those immigrants who have committed crimes in this country.
I can agree with this one if you are talking about serious/violent crimes. If you are talking about using traffic stops, 5 mph above speed limits, possessing marijuana, then no, I do not support removing sanctuary to those immigrants. Right now (you may or may not know), the Trump type "law and order" types are using tiny offenses as an excuse to penalize/deport/remove/jail immigrants. Shame on them.
Anyway, I can agree with several, maybe most of your suggestions.
As to the suggestion that you have made "more positive suggestions" than I have, I'm saying that, as a starting point, to end the racist and anti-immigrant principles that are advocated by this current administration is a VITAL starting point and that all other suggestions need to begin with this primary starting point.
Really, most nation don’t have a system that screens those who wish to enter and some criteria for determining who is allowed to enter and who isn’t?
There was a missing question mark in my comment that you are responding to, and thus, I suspect you missed the irony. What I meant to write was...
"Most nations do NOT have a system in place that stops bad actors from entering (which I support) and lets the others come in (especially, those seeking a better/safer life) unimpeded???" with the implication being that YES, most nations DO have a system in place that stops criminal elements from entering BUT THEY ALSO DO NOT LET others come in, unimpeded.
The point being that no, most nations do NOT let non-criminal immigrants merely seeking a better life (i.e., "immigrants," in general) in to their nations. There are great limits on immigrants across the world.
Hopefully you understand the point now.
here in the people’s republic we don’t have enough: jobs, housing stock, or money to assimilate snother million or ten million people.
The thing is that your side fails to understand is this: With more people entering the nation, you also have more mouths to feed, more homes to build, more stuff to buy, a need for more doctors, nurses, lawyers, bicycle builders, produce, solar panels, etc, etc, etc. In other words, more people are NOT a "drain" on a society, they are a source of income for businesses, restaurants, agencies, home builders, etc, etc. More people DOES mean more jobs being needed, but it also means more stuff to sell to those people having jobs.
Do you understand, now?
It always seems like you all think, "They going go come here, take our jobs, but they won't be buying our food, our homes, our services, our supplies..." as if "immigrant" people are ONLY takers of jobs, and not consumers of products.
Where I think immigration rules come in are this (as I've said in the past and which I think should be obvious, if you aren't wedded to the anti-immigrant/xenophobic biases)...
1. Screen for bad actors/criminals/murderers/terrorists.
2. Work in conjunction with free people immigrating to find the most rational places to be (i.e., not giving 10 million people a bus ticket to a town of 500 with no infrastructure to support them), but Human Rights dictates that people are free to move from one place to another, so this is a cooperative venture, not an authoritarian dispersion.
3... maybe more, but those are the big two.
The arguments for the reasonable notion: Immigrants HELP our Economy
"[Researchers] found that when looking specifically at non-tradable sectors,
each new immigrant produced about 1.2 new jobs,
most of which went to native-born employees.
Put more simply—
if 1,000 new immigrants were to move in,
the local economy would end up gaining about 1,200 new jobs."
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/actually-immigration-can-create-jobs/391997/
The 5 Best Arguments Against Immigration—and Why They're Wrong
https://reason.com/reasontv/2018/02/14/best-arguments-against-immigration
"Contrary to popular belief, immigration has benefited the US economy and had little effect on the overall wage gap and job market, according to a report by the The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine."
"Immigration enlarges the economy while leaving the native population slightly better off on average," they wrote, "but the greatest beneficiaries of immigration are the immigrants themselves as they avail themselves of opportunities not available to them in their home countries."
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-economy/2016/0924/How-immigration-helps-the-US-economy-Report
"These productivity advances have resulted in income gains for American workers. Specifically, the study found that a 1 percent increase in immigrant employment per state leads to a 0.5 percent increase in income per worker."
https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/immigration-helps-u-s-workers-economy/
I could go on, but just think it through. It's just reasonable that these immigrants, like our own ancestors, are by and large just decent human beings seeking to live life in peace and safety. That is something to be supported, not opposed... at least it is for moral and rational people. Especially given the data that immigrants actually HELP natives, not cause harm.
I feel compelled to point out the fact that I posted my list of suggestions before you answered my questions not after. Just for the sake of being accurate.
Too much for now. But when I say “effectively dealing with” the 4 categories I mentioned, I’m suggesting that each of those categories can/should be handled differently and simply imposing a one size fits all approach isn’t helpful.
As to your strange take on the economy, it’s not that “they’re going to take our jobs” at all. It’s that there are not enough jobs currently for us to assimilate 10+ million immigrants. Nor are there enough houses. Here in the peoples Republic, our leftists overlords keep telling us that we don’t currently have, nor will be anytime in the future have the housing stock to adequately how was the projected population increases based on the current levels. Furthermore, the housing stock we do have especially in the rental market is prohibitively expensive. Well these are things that could theoretically balance out over time, we are not talking about that, you’re talking about throwing open the floodgates and letting in anyone who wants to come in.
Of course your answer is a little simplistic. Broadly speaking there are two categories of people who immigrated to the United States. The first is those who were professionals, or highly skilled technicians, in their home country. The second our people Who have a little or no work skills that are directly transferable two jobs in the United States. In the first case, between the federal and state governments as well as various professional organizations there are some hurdles that need to be cleared before professionals for highly skilled technicians can perform the same job they performed where they came from. For example, you wouldn’t take someone who was an attorney in the Congo and throw him into a United States quart room without some sort of assessment to verify that he was familiar with US law. As far as the second group of lower skilled workers, while there will always be room for unskilled or low skilled labor jobs, the number of those jobs will more than likely decrease and if you oversaturate the job market they pay for those jobs will decrease. Neither of those things seem like a recipe for economic growth.
Either way, the hysteria that you a tribute to those who didn’t disagree with you isn’t really the issue, so much as it is trying to allow numbers of immigrants that are consistent with some reasonable level of assimilation.
I do appreciate the fact, that your response to my doing what you asked. Which was to provide some suggestions or thoughts about how to improve the system we have is to say that you agree with me, then proceed to nitpick and find fault with my suggestIons.
It’s that there are not enough jobs currently for us to assimilate 10+ million immigrants. Nor are there enough houses.
Do you suspect that 10 million people are moving in tomorrow? IF you have the data that says that's a reality, I'll be glad to admit that we don't have housing for that many people tomorrow. But, if we have five million builders come in, it won't take too long to make that happen.
I don't think we're talking about an overnight situation.
But we certainly DO need more housing and improvements on infrastructure. If we have wise government, it'd be a process we'd be working on.
Of course, your response is extremely simplistic.
The point is, given time, we CAN handle more immigrants, indeed, given the data I've just shown you, it will BENEFIT us (and them) to have immigrants moving in.
The point of this post, however, is that we should be and ARE, by virtue of human rights and the basic liberty of self determination - IF you believe in human rights (and even if not) - to move from one place to another to make our lives better.
The role of immigration rules, then, is to help make respecting that basic human liberty a smooth process, NOT to arrest, deport, harass, terrorize and demonize immigrants, because that is immoral as hell and we've had enough of it.
You DO recognize the reality that immigrants in this nation are living in fear, being threatened on all sides (all conservative sides, anyway) and are terrorized by the tearing apart of their families and the deportation to dangerous and murderous places? WHY are conservatives not up in arms about the racist terrorism being done by the supporters of the current administration? Are there no moral and rational conservatives left?
What you don’t seem to grasp, Dan, is that I am not saying there should be no immigration. I am saying that we should have a reasonable restrictions on immigration. I am saying that we should be able to control who immigrates to our country. I am saying that every immigrant that comes to this country should go through a screening process. I am saying that immigrants who don’t go through that screening process should not be treated in the same manner as those who do go through that screening process. By way of analogy, I will offer this. If I invite someone into my house and they come in through the front door, it’s reasonabke that I would treat them differently from someone who breaks a window and climbs in uninvited.
What you don’t seem to grasp, Dan, is that I am not saying there should be no immigration.
What YOU DON"T FUCKING SEEM TO GRASP IN YOUR SHIT-RIDDLED SKULL is that I am not saying that you are saying there should be no immigration. Look at my fucking words, you limp-dicked troll: I HAVE NOT SAID THAT. God damn it man, you are NOT this fucking stupid.
Am I wrong? Did you REALLY think that this was the point I was making? That YOU were saying there should be no immigration?
Are you truly that stupid and inept at, you know, reading and understanding the English language?
Because if you truly are that stupid, that inept, then I will feel bad at criticizing you so harshly. Tell me that you're that stupid and I will seriously apologize. Tell me that yes, you truly thought that this was what I was saying and I will tell you (all red-faced) I'm sorry, sorry, sorry.
I, for one, do not think you are that stupid, but you tell me.
I am saying that we should be able to control who immigrates to our country.
So, immigration is NOT a matter of personal liberty and self determination, but a matter that YOU and others like you get to decide for others?
I am saying that every immigrant that comes to this country should go through a screening process.
sigh. I do too, as I've always been fucking clear about. I'm truly sorry that you can't understand reality and, you know, words written that say just that.
If I invite someone into my house and they come in through the front door, it’s reasonable that I would treat them differently from someone who breaks a window and climbs in uninvited.
And THIS is the fucking, diabolical, hellish lie: People who break into houses are causing harm to others. People who merely move from one place (in Mexico, for instance) to another free, public place (in Arizona, say) are NOT criminals. They are human beings exercising their right to self determination.
DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT DIFFERENCE?
(and again, please make it clear that you truly are so stupid that you don't/didn't understand any of this and truly, I will apologize.)
Let me make something hopefully even clearer than it should be already:
I am using strong, harsh language because this is a life and death situation.
I am using strong, harsh language because we are talking about basic human rights.
I am using strong, harsh language in the case of how you all are responding to me because (and listen closely...)
IF IT IS TRULY THE CASE that you truly did not/do not understand...
IF you TRULY think that I thought you were arguing for NO immigration (something I have never said or suggested at all, ever, in the least)...
IF you TRULY think that I argued for NO IMMIGRATION GUIDELINES (something I have never suggested and have, indeed, suggested specifically and literally the opposite of that)...
IF you TRULY are this far off in understanding my words, then it appears that this is something beyond stupidity... because of course when I tell you this again, here, now... you are entirely capable of understanding it... no, it's not a matter of being stupid.
I suspect that this Other Thing, then, this other explanation for such inanely stupid conclusions is that you all have allowed your conservatism and your irrational hatred of liberals MAKE YOURSELVES not understand. You almost certainly MUST BE embracing irrational conclusions NOT because of my words (since, again, I've never said any of these sorts of things) but because you want to think the worst of liberals, or of me, perhaps.
In other words, you are not so stupid that you can't understand my basic easily understood words... instead, you almost certainly must be choosing this stupidity, as it allows you to hatefully attack those you disagree with.
What else could explain it?
Or maybe that's not it. It's just so difficult to say. As with all things associated with the sick brand of conservatism today, it's all just so damned irrational that it's quite inexplicable.
I point out to two separate conservative friends of mine - DEAR family and friends, GOOD people - that two separate posts that they passed on were fake news, false claims. You could tell just by looking at them that they were obviously fake claims. But just the same, I provided the sources that showed that they were false claims. It wasn't debatable, they WERE literally false claims, literally fake news.
I wrote to both of them explaining politely that these were false claims and, "come now, I know you to be good people who wouldn't want to pass on false claims..."
...and you know what? Both of those false claims are still there, being passed on by other conservatives who are being outraged and passing it on to other conservatives who get outraged and pass the lies on like a diabolical contagion.
What explains that? It's irrational. It's hateful. It's dangerous. It's potentially deadly in the ramifications (that is, the ramifications of passing on fake news).
What explains good people deliberately passing on fake news/false claims? Good Christian people?!
It's a sickness, it's a mental disorder, it's fear-crazed paranoia... I don't know.
It just makes no damned sense and it just makes me bone-tired.
Dan,
I’m not sure why your addled brain thinks that I can explain why every person you perceive as conservative acts the way they do. But, if you’re so blind that you can’t realize that posting “fake news” on social media is a bipartisan issue, then you’re beyond help.
I really shouldn’t give your expletive filled rant any time, because it just shows your inability to control yourself.
But, when I say “we” should be able to control our border, I’m talking about “We the people”, not “me”. The fact that you chose that not to pick, tenders so much of the rest of your rant and self justification a waste of my time to read and respond to.
How about this. Why don’t you take the time to clearly and specifically articulate what your version of the perfect US policy for immigration would be.
You’ve asked for suggestions, I gave them, and you found stuff to bitch about. So why not just give a clear, direct, point by point vision?
Before one has specific rules and policies in place, Craig, one needs to have a sound set of principles in place. The rules and policies, then, need to reflect the principles.
Doesn't that make sense?
THIS post was about, first of all, recognizing the sound rational and moral principles that we need to embrace (and the irrational and immoral ones we need to move away from) and specify.
Those principles are:
1. That people have the right to Self Determination (of course, that doesn't conflict with others' right to Self Determination... your right to swing your fist, etc, etc)
2. The right to Self Determination includes the right to free movement, that is, the right to move from here to there,
2a. where "there" of course does not mean "In someone else's property" but is only referring to free, public lands. A house for sale on Main St is free, public, available land (free, in the sense that it's open to buy and without saying "you have to be white, male, straight or American to buy it...")
3. This is especially true for those who seek to move from Here to There where they do not feel safe, secure, able to survive or thrive in "Here" and "There is a place of perceived safety and security.
This is just reasonable human rights as derived from the Right to Self Determination. You'd be pissed off if your family was in danger in neighborhood 1 and neighborhood 10 seemed to you to be a safer place BUT someone told you, NO, you can not move there. And you'd be rightly pissed off, because it is an assault on your rights and, really, on your family's safety. OF COURSE, you should move to a place of perceived improvement and safety, and should be free to do so.
4. The ONLY caveats to this basic human right to self determination (which is included in the very notion of Self Determination) is that you are not free to cause harm to others. Thus, nations, neighborhoods and people CAN RIGHTLY restrict away from them those who wish to, plan to, express desires to, HAVE caused harm to others. Thus, the white extremist who wants to kill or deny rights to black, Arab, Latino or other folk can rightly be told, "You're not welcome here in our nation..." and THEIR acceptance into the nation be blocked.
Of course, that goes without saying unless you're a moron.
=====
Those are the principles I'm talking about, very specific and clear, unless you're trying to be obtuse.
These, then, are my clear and specific version of the perfect US PRINCIPLES for US (or any free republic) policy for immigration would be.
Do you agree with those principles?
++++++
GIVEN these principles, then many of your suggestions (which I fucking clearly said I fucking agreed with, by and large... and noted some exceptions... What the fuck do you want me to do? Go down, one by one and say, "1. I agree with that. 2. I agree with that. 3...."
...Is it NOT fucking clear when I say "I mostly agree with your points that, with the exceptions noted," that I AGREE with the points, with the exceptions noted?
THIS is why conversation with you is difficult, because you seem to go out of your way to make it difficult.
But yes, GIVEN that probably for MOST people in the world, their desire is to stay in their homeland IF it were safe and secure, I support policies (and FUNDING FOR POLICIES) that help other nations be safe and secure, not desperate, dangerous and poor. I support ENDING policies that contribute to places being less secure or safe, less poor and oppressed.
That would be amongst some of my starting points for specific positions to adopt.
Out of time.
Whether I agree with your “principles” or not has absolutely zero to do with your ability to articulate a coherent point by point plan. What I’m suggesting is that you, guided by your principles, enumerate some actual specific policies that you believe will bring about the results you think will help.
I probably will. But why are you not able to affirm this basic human rights oriented principle set?
Or conversely why can you say no I do not agree with these basic human rights positions?
You see, my main interest in this post is to point out that free movement is part and parcel of self-determination. And thus, the old UN limitation of "free movement" to "within one's own country" is unnecessary and unjust and still not a complete fulfillment of self-determination.
Secondarily to pointing this out, I'm wondering why aren't people supporting this reasonable recognition of personal autonomy? People, good people, people concerned with Justice and morality, people who are reasonable... need to be supporting free movement.
My thinking is that people just haven't thought it through and this is what I'm encouraging.
So, rules and regulations that might follow these principles are fine and good, but people need to buy into the principle, first.
Why are you so obsessed with me agreeing to your version of “free movement”? Why does it matter? The reality is, that the specific details are what is more important to most people in real life.
Since this is all theoretical, who cares if I don’t 100% buy into your “principles”? Why is it such a big deal to simply lay out a specific point by point plan?
I gave it some thought, and here’s where I have reservations about your “principles”.
1. They seem to be prioritizing the wants of the immigrants at the expense of others.
2. They ignore the experience of the EU in the past few years.
3. They imply that other countries must accept untold numbers of refugees with little or no regard for the effect on those already there.
4. They seem to prioritize movement or immigration over staying and building a better society in their country of origin.
The above are my opinions, I’m not claiming they’re right, just opinions. But, given what I can see, these concerns prevent me from buying your “principles”. Perhaps, if you decide to translate these “principles” into actual specific policy proposals I might change my mind.
But, as I said, they’re your “principles” and your details nothing says I have to buy into them.
"They ignore the experience of the EU in the past few years."
-- Craig
Is Dan of the opinion that Europe is becoming an all-around better place for its average citizen here in the 21st century?
~ Hiram
I’m not sure about Dan, but it seems like a lot of Europeans aren’t particularly jazzed.
On a more serious note, it seems like past generations of immigrants came with a desire to assimilate, while there is more tendency among recent immigrants not to want to assimilate.
It may seem that way to you. You are almost certainly mistaken.
Fact: there have always been some percentage of immigrants who "didn't want to" assimilate.
Fact: nonetheless, almost all families have assimilated eventually.
Fact: there's insufficient data available to support the claim and...
Opinion: you are almost certainly mistaken, engaging in that old human tendency to romanticize the good old days.
More later.
"Those principles are:
1. That people have the right to Self Determination"
As you gun-grabbers constantly rant to those who insist their right to bear arms not be infringed, rights are not without limitation. Laws, by definition, limit rights of self-determination. Their enactment is for the general welfare of the entire population as a whole, even when they impede the self-determination of individuals with no ill intent. For example, my "right" to free movement is limited by the criteria for owning and driving a car purchased for the purpose. If I can't pass the driver's test in order to get a license, I am not allowed to move about as freely as I might not otherwise move due to one less mode of transportation available to me. You complain that traffic laws are an irrational example of the "right" to free movement being infringed due to concerns about harm. But there's no guarantee that without stop signs, speed limits and other traffic laws that I'd ever even have the potential to harm anyone (I'm an excellent driver. --Raymond Babbitt)
It is the same with immigration law. It doesn't consider that an alien is a benefit or a detriment, but only concerns itself with defending against those who might be...the potential for harm...because it's priority is what is best for the citizens of this country and then the intent of the alien after satisfying that concern for our own. The Trump administration doing it's job in that regard is not "evil", but quite the opposite, regardless of the impact it might have on a few of the many thousands trying to enter without regard to those laws governing their desire to do so.
But you would have simply accept the word of the alien who claims their life is in danger. Don't try to pretend you're not saying that, because that has been the discussion here. Not that we don't understand you, but that you don't understand the need for immigration law and the duty of this administration (and those who came before) to enforce those laws. How do YOU know that ANY of those you cite in your anecdotal arguments are truly fleeing direct and personal danger? Do you have the courage and integrity to respond to such questions? It doesn't appear so. It appears you're only geeked to disparage this administration, our immigration policies and laws, and those of us who defend their implementation and enforcement.
Do you have the honesty to tell me how this comment is not on topic and addressing the point of your post? Or are you simply going to delete it be you can't?
continuing...
"2a. where "there" of course does not mean "In someone else's property" but is only referring to free, public lands."
No one is comparing private property with public land. But as an analogy, it is appropriate. The population of the United States is a family of peoples. The land that is our nation is our home. We have the right to determine who enters our home in the same way each of us as individuals has the right to determine who enters our actual homes. In each case, we do so for our protection and benefit. Our immigration policies are simply the home owners deciding if those wishing entry should be allowed in based on criteria the "hone owner" deems necessary to keep the rest of us safe and secure and thriving, in the same way YOU do the very same thing for the benefit of your actual family. Thus, those who enter by means other than those authorized is no different than someone entering your home without permission, and the detriment is exactly the same on a much larger scale. Someone who breaks into your house isn't automatically doing so for evil reasons, anymore than all aliens who cross the border in unauthorized ways do. But how do you know until you confront that person, and how do we know as a nation if we can't confront the alien? Where in this scrutiny do you see evil? How is it in any way immoral to say to either the alien or the person breaking into your home, "Come to me directly and let's confirm your story so that I know whether it is legitimate. If it is, perhaps then I (or we) might help."
It's to a great extent a matter of simple courtesy. You appear to believe that the claim of fleeing danger renders such courtesies unnecessary. You appear to believe that to insist that one confirms their story is somehow immoral and evil and if the story can't be at least considered likely that it is immoral and evil to send the person back to try again to enter, but by the proper procedures. How so exactly? Because the person might suffer in some way? But how do we know?
You want us to believe that there is nowhere within the alien's home country that they can travel to escape whatever dangers frighten them...that it can only be our country that will allow them to live in peace...that if their claim is simply "a better life" that we MUST allow them in regardless of whether or not their being here is a benefit to us or drain on our system. Where's the immorality of having expectations on those who wish to enter? You want to use "harm" as a standard, but apparently you aren't concerned with every form harm might take...it can only be a threat to their lives or that they have to work harder in their own country. How do you respond to these concerns?
"3. This is especially true for those who seek to move from Here to There where they do not feel safe, secure, able to survive or thrive in "Here" and "There is a place of perceived safety and security."
We who question your position are concerned that we have the right to determine if the claims of danger are legitimate. You seem to expect us to simply take their word for it, and for those who do not seek entry according to our laws, the problem is compounded. Yet, we and the government are the immoral ones. Explain how this is so.
continuing...
"4. The ONLY caveats to this basic human right to self determination (which is included in the very notion of Self Determination) is that you are not free to cause harm to others"
Again, the problem with your position is that you ignore that our concerns are in how we determine that one seeking entry is not likely to cause problems. Our immigration system is meant to make the determination, because despite your insistence that there should be no restrictions on those not seeking to harm others, there is no way to determine whether one is likely to do so without first stopping them at the border and vetting them to the best of our ability. Some will be wonderful people but still unable to satisfy the necessary criteria. That's too bad, but there's nothing evil or immoral about it, and certainly nothing that you've been able to present thus far. You simply insist that it is. And the lax enforcement of our immigration laws have allowed an estimated 10,000 MS-13 members to spread their terror across our nation. (How many of that estimated number are out-of-towners or natives recruited is neither here nor there) And that's just one group of ne'er-do-wells. It doesn't, for example, account for those who incite radical islamic behaviors in second generation muslims...an example of one group who, by their "religious" teachings, WILL NOT assimilate, but instead seek to transform our nation to their own satisfaction...our will and desires be damned.
"These, then, are my clear and specific version of the perfect US PRINCIPLES for US (or any free republic) policy for immigration would be."
These principles are not in any way in conflict with the implementation of immigration laws, simply because some people are denied entry. You fail to realize or accept that there is a balance that is next to impossible to maintain: balancing the needs and desires of the alien with those of our own citizens, the latter group necessarily having priority in the responsibilities of our government. A far greater priority, and that is absolutely the moral responsibility of our government, as it is of any other. The failure of foreign governments to keep their people safe does not oblige any other government to subordinate their responsibilities to their own people to the alleged plight of foreigners. You haven't made the case to the contrary. You simply emote, and criticize us for questioning the wisdom of ignoring our immigration laws, and the responsibilities of our government in keeping us safe.
"THIS is why conversation with you is difficult, because you seem to go out of your way to make it difficult."
Nonsense. Conversation is difficult due to your outrage that we question your posturing and attacks on our government for doing its duty, and for the immoral suggestion that doing so is immoral simply because of a lack of clairvoyance that leaves some aliens in the lurch. By that logic, we are immoral because we cannot save everyone who is somehow threatened by some form of danger. We're immoral because we cannot cure cancer and other diseases that take thousands of lives every year. We're immoral because we can't prevent traffic deaths. We're immoral because we can't keep thugs from killing kids.
Craig and I have been directly addressing your point as poorly stated...that is, we're speaking specifically about the people YOU want to pretend are "sent to their deaths" by "immoral immigration laws".
And finally,
"And thus, the old UN limitation of "free movement" to "within one's own country" is unnecessary and unjust and still not a complete fulfillment of self-determination. "
But there's no rational basis for this, as there are limitations on all rights. What's more, it doesn't mean jack what the UN says. Each nation is sovereign and as it turns out, each nation has at least this one common trait...that each believes it is important to monitor and regulate who enters their country, how many and on terms that are beneficial to it and/or its people. That, again, is their MORAL responsibility first and foremost as concerns their immigration policies.
"Secondarily to pointing this out, I'm wondering why aren't people supporting this reasonable recognition of personal autonomy?"
We do recognize it...we just recognize it in a manner that doesn't put our own people at risk. And despite your attempts to demonize us, that recognition doesn't mean we view all foreigners as evil and a threat.
"People, good people, people concerned with Justice and morality, people who are reasonable..."
...do not regard immigration law as being in conflict with "rights" to free movement. That's absurd given the proven downside of ignoring those laws. We also do not equate immigration law with the suffering of those who cannot enter according to those laws, as if it is the law that is the cause of their suffering and thus the laws are evil. That's even more absurd. I suffer if I cannot satisfy the criteria for acquiring a driver's license. That doesn't make the law evil or immoral. The same is true with immigration law, despite your petulant refusal to accept this reality.
Thus, it is not us who have failed to think this issue through. It is you because you can't get beyond stories of people who are sent back and meet untimely deaths. Indeed, you're not thinking at all, but acting on emotion, which is irrational. That's also a part of our point in responding to you on this issue. We're not dismissing the suffering. We're looking at it objectively because that is what is necessary to come up with the best solution, if one even exists. There may be none that isn't more of the same attention to enforcing the law as we're seeing with this administration. At least Sessions is calling for quotas to make sure as many backlogged cases are resolved. That's progress we haven't been seeing until now. Thus, that one change alone shows this administration is more concerned with the suffering of these people than what you're honest and Christian enough to acknowledge. It confounds your "Trump is evil" position, but it's the reality. Let's see how it plays out before you rag on them again.
That's a long response to your comments that I've saved for reposting should you delete them. They are all totally on topic and directly addressing your point.
I guess pointing out the fact that I used the word “seems” negates the possibility that my statement is a “claim”.
You do understand that opinions aren’t claims of fact, but statements of opinion.
I’m going to wait patiently for your specific policies.
Oh, and my opinion about assimilation is not nostalgia for the “good old days”, it’s based on spending large amounts of time with more recent immigrants.
I’ll forgive you.
And how much time have you spent with immigrants from 100 years ago? Oh, what?! None?
Yeah, an opinion based on incomplete data is, well, an unsupported opinion based on limited and incomplete data.
fyi.
And I get that you were saying "it seems to you..." I was just pointing out that you were almost certainly wrong (based on reading about immigrants today and about immigrants though the decades).
I forgive you, too, Craig, for such a rookie mistake.
~Dan
Craig...
here’s where I have reservations about your “principles”.
1. They seem to be prioritizing the wants of the immigrants at the expense of others.
Here's the thing: Immigrants moving from there to here are not HARMING others. Thus, there is little or no "expense" to others (i.e., the Americans - descended, themselves, from other immigrants - who are already here). Indeed, if you read the sources I cited, we see that immigrants bring a net GAIN to existing US citizens.
That's what you're missing in this...
2. They ignore the experience of the EU in the past few years.
No, they look at the data that shows that immigrants bring a net gain to the US AND to them, as well. It's win/win.
I'm not as familiar with the EU immigrant situation (other than I know that there is an ugly and racist history in parts of Europe of demonizing immigrants which helped lead people like Hitler to power), but while I have read that there are large numbers (probably not a majority, though) of Europeans who are less than satisfied with the immigrant situation, I have seen no data to suggest that immigrants there are actually harming Europeans.
But the data HERE shows that they are a net gain, so, THAT data is what I'm looking at. That, and the notion that human liberty is for all, not just those fortunate enough to be born in wealthy nations.
3. They imply that other countries must accept untold numbers of refugees with little or no regard for the effect on those already there.
No, no one has suggested this. Again, the data gives lie to the fear mongering.
4. They seem to prioritize movement or immigration over staying and building a better society in their country of origin.
Nope. Not at all. Indeed, THE FUCKING OPPOSITE.
Now, repeat after me: Those who are okay with open immigration PREFER that poorer nations were better off and that dangerous nations were safer. THAT IS THE FIRST OPTION, as I have always made quite clear and is apparent to anyone without an agenda.
Repeat that 1,000 times then come back to me and let me know if you understand that, even though it "SEEMS" that way to you, you are frankly utterly backwards and mistaken.
When you can come back and tell me you recognize, now that you were totally mistaken, we can move on.
++++++
More...
Beyond that, you still don't appear to "get" why principles are so important and must come before setting up rules on a whim.
If I hold a principle that it is moral and rational to NOT abuse or oppress or condemn an immigrant because they are immigrants, then anyone who suggests, "But what if... X, THEN we really need to condemn immigrants, don't we?!" I don't really have to think about it because hell-the-fuck-no. I have principles and those principles include not abusing, oppressing or condemning immigrants out of hand.
Holding principled positions helps us avoid foolish immoral acts in the heat of the moment.
"But what if immigrants hijack an airplane and crash it into the Whitehouse, killing thousands of people? THEN we really need to beat the shit out of immigrants, right?!"
No. I have principles and those principles preclude taking such immoral and irrational actions.
"But what if immigrants MIGHT take "our" jobs by moving here..., THEN we can condemn them and send them away, right?!"
No. I have principles and those principles preclude taking such immoral and irrational actions. Why would a FEAR of job loss be reason to turn away those in need?
No doubt the priest and the Levite who passed the man who'd been beaten could reason, "But what if he's actually a robber that's waiting to beat ME up. It's happened in the past and it could happen again!" but the good Samaritan recognized that, No, he has principles, and those principles include not abandoning a person in need.
My principles preclude me from abandoning people in need, especially when ALL they want is to enjoy the human right to move from here to there.
Do you understand now why principles are an important starting point? Why the PRINCIPLES are the point of THIS POST?
Do you understand, even, that the principles are the point of this post?
Theologian and economist, Ched Myers, talks about how the Bible, properly understood, teaches us principles of abundance.
Because God gives plenty, we can rest assured in that plenty. When we share of our plenty, we can be sure that there is plenty to go around. Enough.
Now, in this line of thinking, there isn't "enough" when one groups wants it all, but if we operate from the notion of only needing "enough," there is enough. Myers points to the whole Bible as support for this and walks us through this thinking in his small booklet, Sabbath Economics. He points to the story of manna, how each day provided enough. How God specifically taught them NOT to try to store up more and more, for fear of times of scarcity, and when they tried to do so, it only rotted and was worthless. And, of course, in the teachings of Jesus, we have the notion that we are not to store up treasures, but to trust in God for our daily bread and to share with one another as we have need.
Contrariwise to this teaching, Myers says the World teaches us to operate from a principle of Scarcity. In this path, there is fear and hoarding and turning away. In the principle of Plenty, there is sharing and faith and community.
I bring this up because this seems to be the operating principle for much of conservatism, especially as it relates to immigrants.
They operate from a place of fear that IF immigrants come, maybe there won't be enough jobs. Maybe, they'll be many rapists and murderers and thieves among them. Maybe, they'll just want to use our welfare system and suck us dry.
Maybe, maybe, maybe. Fear, fear, scarcity.
For one operating, then, from a principle of sharing and NOT turning away those in need, we see another person arriving in need as an opportunity to minister to Jesus, to the least of these, to follow the teachings of Christ, recognizing the whole Karmic effect and the Golden Rule, that we should do unto others what we'd have them do unto us.
IF WE were moving from here to there to seek safety, WE would hope that the people There would let us in to receive safety and the chance to do better. The fucking American Dream and all that.
For those operating from the principle of scarcity and fear, however, they see another person arriving as "Hell, we're on a lifeboat that's already teetering and full. To take anyone else on board is to cause the death of someone already here..." For those operating in that model and with that principle (take care of US first. Make America Great FIRST Again...), then I get how it seems smarter to NOT follow the Golden Rule, but to take care of US FIRST.
Which, again, is why I'm seeking to lay the ground rules for principles that guide us.
The Golden Rule is my principle.
I can't see any way to follow the Golden Rule and at the same time, turn away people in need.
Can you?
With a little time now available, I can now look at some of the links you posted earlier and comment on them. From the Atlantic piece, this last paragraph:
"Of course there are some limitations to these findings when it comes to highlighting the positives that a new population of immigrants can bring to a local economy. The study does not wholly refute the idea that immigration can introduce additional competition into the job market and create changes, sometimes negative ones, to wages within local economies. The research also doesn't necessarily give a full picture of what happens to jobs in the tradable sector. It does however bring up a compelling point about the need for a thorough and holistic approach to answering the question of how immigrants can impact the workforce and in what ways the positive outcomes may mitigate, or even trump, existing negative narratives."
This basically says that the claim that for every immigrant 1.2 jobs are created is not all that reliable. If it acknowledges the negatives, it must show that the negatives have no bearing on the claim...it doesn't. What's more, it refers to "immigrants" without regard to whether or not it makes a difference if the immigrants has legal status as a citizen or otherwise documentation allowing his presence to live and work here, versus those who have no such status. To the latter, I'm sure they're helping to create jobs for Americans as well, in much the same way that increased crime results in more jobs in law enforcement, corrections and the medical field. Those aren't the type of jobs that results in economic growth.
Next is the reason.com piece. But already I'm seeing a trend in that there is little effort to distinguish between the effects of immigrants who enter by the book and those who don't. This is incredibly important because, despite what you might want to believe, they impact the economy differently. The most important point of relevance is the fact that those who entered legally have indeed been vetted for the most part, and have been deemed to be of benefit by their being here. We can't know that about those who enter without benefit of official authorization. The "officially welcomed" would then be LESS likely to be drain on the system and be more likely to contribute, and to contribute greatly...which is what those of us on our side of this discussion support when considering who gets to come here.
As to the piece, one of the first links it presents, which speaks of 1500 economists...there's clearly no mention made differentiating between authorized entrants versus unauthorized. One must assume they're only referring to authorized. It can't be a good thing to include the unauthorized given that it is impossible to account for how much contribution the unauthorized are making. When you add in those who are criminals, like those MS-13 members and recruiters for islamic radicalism, the benefits are greatly lowered. And the data shows that the unauthorized are over represented in the prison system, which also costs us money.
So that's two links that not only don't give an accurate picture of the situation, but they both completely unrelated to the topic here...the "right of free movement" and whether or not our immigration policy is an immoral impediment to that right.
more on your links later...
"Theologian and economist, Ched Myers, talks about how the Bible, properly understood, teaches us principles of abundance."
Properly understood? According to whom? Myers? Is he speaking for God now? C'mon! You reject any such talk when we dare talk about what Scripture means!
Right from the beginning, it appears fairly obvious that he's speaking of a zero sum game, which is leftist economics and not an accurate perspective of how wealth works. (I will also state that in your comment it is not always clear where you're citing him or injecting your understanding of him or even your own point of view). More to the point, the immigration debate is not solely based on notions of resource consumption, wage depression or taking jobs. And it's not the issue in this thread according to your own words. But then it gets really dicey:
"Now, in this line of thinking, there isn't "enough" when one groups wants it all..."
Who's thinking like this? Indeed, who here has suggested that "we want it all"? Even those who want more understand that they can't have it all, few even have that as a legitimate goal in life. And for reasons I'll never understand, there are some, if not most, on your side of the divide that seems to think those who want more are unlikely to share. But due to the way economics actually works, especially in our capitalist system, there's rarely less than enough, and more commonly there's more, even with many people wanting more than enough.
"He points to the story of manna, how each day provided enough. How God specifically taught them NOT to try to store up more and more, for fear of times of scarcity, and when they tried to do so, it only rotted and was worthless."
Of course this story is about trust in God, not just today, but that tomorrow He'll take care of us. Storing the manna showed a lack of trust, given that He told them He'd provide manna every morning.
But it isn't about having enough and never striving for more. All talk of money in Scripture...you know, from pointing to the whole Bible for support for this...is about trusting more in the wealth than in God...caring more for the wealth than for how God wants use to live...that we still need God in times of good as in times of misfortune. I think Myers is a progressive and that's a poor understanding of what Scripture teaches. He, like you, misrepresent the notion of not storing up treasures, as it clearly teaches to first store up treasures in heaven...not simply to "live simply". Living simply is both nonsensical without storing up treasures in heaven, as well as reduces or eliminates any ability to be charitable...unless sharing misery is what Scripture is teaching. I don't think it is.
"Contrariwise to this teaching, Myers says the World teaches us to operate from a principle of Scarcity. In this path, there is fear and hoarding and turning away."
That's not at all the position of most people who understand immigration policy, though if there is no regulation, it is not beyond rational and reasonable to fear that our resources will be strained. It is foolish to pretend otherwise, especially with no concrete plan to to meet the demands of your "principles" that can be examined. If our principles are to take in all who seek a better life, how are we to do this without straining our resources? Imagine all the people who are not a part of the oppressive regimes throughout the world trying to get in. How do we do that and not overburden our system?
"I bring this up because this seems to be the operating principle for much of conservatism, especially as it relates to immigrants."
More evidence that you have no idea what conservatism is, and never did. You were never a conservative if you're understanding is this flawed.
more...
"They operate from a place of fear that IF immigrants come, maybe there won't be enough jobs. Maybe, they'll be many rapists and murderers and thieves among them. Maybe, they'll just want to use our welfare system and suck us dry."
This is a deceitful overstatement of the concern of, not just conservatives, but all rational people who look at the situation objectively. The fact is that the job situation CAN be and likely IS negatively impacted, as even your links acknowledge while trying to make their case that it never does.
The fact is that we've seen criminals entering our country among refugees and others groups (or on their own) due to lax enforcement of our immigration laws and defense of our borders. This is well documented.
The fact is that there ARE those who do little more than feed off our generosity without contributing in any significant way. This, too, is documented.
And NONE of this should be taken to mean we believe even when referencing the undocumented that ALL are criminals, rapists and leeches. That's just your side demonizing ours for daring to acknowledge reality.
"For those operating in that model and with that principle (take care of US first. Make America Great FIRST Again...), then I get how it seems smarter to NOT follow the Golden Rule, but to take care of US FIRST."
There is no automatic rejection of the Golden Rule by having a "take care of us first" attitude. Indeed, one is more able to be charitable when one has than when one has nothing. Or do you personally just start treating people like crap when you're poor? When one does not take care of one's self, one becomes a burden to others. How is it not prudent to take care of one's self first? Yet in doing so one is still capable of helping others. It's not even multi-tasking! But our immigration policies is NOT a matter of rejecting the Golden Rule, because it isn't a matter of individuals dealing with other individuals. It's a matter of the American government doing it's job in protecting its citizens and its citizens as its priority over those who aren't its citizens is the government's moral duty and obligation. This is what you don't understand or reject, and why we have such a problem with your position. You seem to insist that because some alien asserts he/she is fleeing danger that our government should ignore its responsibilities to its people and simply assume the alien is who and what he/she says he/she is as if there's no possibility that the alien might be lying or otherwise overstating his/her situation just to avail his/herself of whatever he/she can get by being here. In the meantime, we're saying, let's be as sure as we can that this person really requires asylum, in which case we're happy to assist until the threat is resolved.
Where do you see anything unreasonable in anything I've said in these several comments?
Drug addiction. AIDS. Corruption. Murder. Those were some of the things that came up in a National Geographic TV documentary I just watched on the situation in Puerto Rico, which the narrator described as "a private hell." When he said, "Puerto Rico's coastline is more open than the US/Mexico border," I thought of this comments page.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as the old saying goes.
~ Hiram
Hiram,
Are you suggesting those ills are the result of soft borders of Puerto Rico?
And... y'all have descended back to the Blame them all for the actions of a few that I warned against.
Have I seen anything unreasonable, Marshall? I have yet to see anything reasonable. I just see fear mongering and demonization. Irrational blaming of the immigrants and ignoring of the data.
There is no automatic rejection of the Golden Rule by having a "take care of us first" attitude.
Good God, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Now, if you were JUST talking about reasonable Self Care, that's one thing... but you've gone beyond that.
Self care is loving others AS we love ourselves. It encourages us to not over do things or fail to take Sabbath rests... but it's NOT an excuse to ignore the needs of the others. What a complete bastardization of the Golden Rule.
"Do unto others AFTER you've taken care of yourself and, when you DO unto those "others" (the ones who are criminals and rapists and taking our jobs and trying to kill us...), you don't have to do JUST what you'd want to be done unto yourself. In fact, you can say FUCK 'EM, and send them to their deaths."
That is NOT the Golden Rule. It's the pathetic Devil Rule that promotes selfishness, not self care that leads you to be sharing.
Damn that.
I'm leaving your comments now, but you all have had enough rope to hang yourselves. I'm disappointed to see this sort of language from you, Hiram.
Again: LOOK AT THE DATA. Immigration is a net GAIN for existing citizens.
And while I know you all probably simply don't understand, but you can't say, "Oh, look, SOME of the immigrants are misbehaving. That means that immigration needs to be limited." any more than you can rationally say, "Oh, look, SOME of the white evangelicals are misbehaving. That means we need to limit white evangelicals.
Just stop.
Again and for the final time: IF you can post helpful positive solutions that lets us live up to the ideals and principles of human rights, THEN we can talk. IF you want to talk about ways to promote healthier homelands for other peoples/nations, by all means, make those suggestions. IF you want to talk about positive ways to find homes and solutions for immigrants in healthy ways that work for all, make those suggestions.
But no more idiotic, demonic blaming of the victims. That is over.
IF you want to comment here, begin by acknowledging the data that shows immigration is net gain for citizens.
Yes Dan, it's clear that over 10 years of interacting with immigrants, and significant study of US history gives me absolutely zero basis to form opinions about the similarities and differences. You're firsthand experience with immigrants from the past qualifies you to make pronouncements. Double standard much?
As to your responses to my concerns, I appreciate them, but they don't allay my concerns.
Beyond that, I "get" what you are saying about principles underlying specific points of action or policy.
What you don't get, is that MY 100% agreement with YOUR principles doesn't affect YOU providing actual specific policy suggestions based on YOUR principles. In fact, your obsession with me agreeing with your principles is bizarre. I've nicely asked that YOU use YOUR principles to present 10-15 specific policies that YOU think would improve the system. None of that requires me to agree with your principles.
My concern, is that your are setting up this hurdle (me agreeing with your principles) as a way to provide you with an excuse not to delineate specific policies.
RE your responses to my concerns.
1. I didn't use the term harm. Therefore your are responding to something I didn't say. As to your claim about expense. A) "little" expense is still expense. B) You'd have to prove that there would be "no" expense. Also, given the fact that our country is saddled with ridiculous amounts of debt, the reality is that every dollar spent on immigrants is a dollar we don't have, so if nothing else the interest spent to borrow this money is an expense (a large expense on future generations, no less).
2. Then I suggest that you use The Google and actually take a look at what is happening in the real world as a result of much less restrictive immigration policies before you dismiss my concern. As for this "data' you claim exists, if you can't provide it, it's not part of the conversation. FYI, data only relates to the past. How do you propose to demonstrate that adding exponentially to the influx of immigrants will match exactly with the past data?
3. In the absence of specific policy proposals and details, I see no reason to change my concern.
4. Again, in the absence of any details, my concern remains. But the fact that you liberally laced your tirade with expletives almost convinced me.
Perhaps, more specific proposals and less platitudes would be a better way to address my concerns. Or perhaps, more data and less expletives would be a better course.
"But what if... X, THEN we really need to condemn immigrants, don't we?!"
Let's start with the fact that no one in this conversation is doing anything remotely similar to the above. So, why try to muddy the waters with something made up?
"But what if immigrants hijack an airplane and crash it into the Whitehouse, killing thousands of people? THEN we really need to beat the shit out of immigrants, right?!"
Again, no one in this conversation is saying that. Why not just deal with what is actually being said here?
"But what if immigrants MIGHT take "our" jobs by moving here..., THEN we can condemn them and send them away, right?!"
Once again, no one in this conversation is saying this. Why not stick to what's actually being said.
No. I have principles and those principles preclude taking such immoral and irrational actions. Why would a FEAR of job loss be reason to turn away those in need?
It's not fear to look at the number of available jobs (X), and the number of projected new jobs (Y), and conclude that all if X+Y=Z then it would be a mistake to allow Zx10 immigrants enter the country at one time. Looking at the data and making policy based on data and projections isn't fear it's common sense. Also, accusing people of being motivated by "fear", when that's not the case is about as helpful as flinging expletives at them constantly.
Do you understand now why principles are an important starting point?
I've said this before, but yes I do. I don't understand why my concerns about YOUR principles prevent YOU from presenting specifics based on YOUR principles.
Why the PRINCIPLES are the point of THIS POST?
You say that, but you also ask for people to "offer helpful changes", so clearly actually offering and discussing the "helpful changes" you asked for (even for you to offer your own) is withing the scope of the original post topic.
"Do you understand, even, that the principles are the point of this post?"
Do you understand that asking the same question multiple times in the same comment is weird? Do you understand that the very text of your original post (as well as later comments) asks for specific "helpful hints"? Do you understand that the principles you articulated are vague and broad, and that within those principles exists a lot of space that will only make sense through specific policy suggestions.
Here's one.
If you want to protect the topic of this post. Put your specific proposals in a new post and let them be discussed there.
Art, I haven't been to Puerto Rico, so the best I can do is rely on those who have, such as the TV documentary crew. They said it is really easy to bring narcotics into Puerto Rico, and mentioned some specific countries of origination. The ones I remember from last night are Dominican Republic, Colombia, and (maybe) Venezuela. I believe they used the term "green paradise" to describe Puerto Rico decades back when the drugs were not yet being brought in.
~ Hiram
Dan is disappointed in me for my language above. I am disappointed in Dan's blindness to the law of unintended consequences.
~ Hiram
What, do you mean to say that there is a remote possibility that Dan’s open borders principles could have consequences he hasn’t thought about? And that those could be negative?
"I just see fear mongering and demonization. Irrational blaming of the immigrants and ignoring of the data."
Well, we've always disagreed about what "reasonable" means and looks like, so I'm not surprised there's an issue here. But where do you see "fear mongering" and "demonization"? I don't know how I could have been more clear and specific in how I stated my points. Ironic how your response comes after constant lamentations regarding being misunderstood. So, where have I blamed immigrants for anything? Don't just make assertions. Provide examples. Also, I haven't ignored the data at all...speaking of those links I've had the time to peruse. Instead, I've found fault in what you think those links are saying relative to the point of this post...even considering how the point has been rather fluid.
I said, "There is no automatic rejection of the Golden Rule by having a "take care of us first" attitude."
You replied,
"Good God, what the fuck is wrong with you?"
There is no one good but God, I am NOT God and there's nothing wrong with me.
"Now, if you were JUST talking about reasonable Self Care, that's one thing... but you've gone beyond that."
Not even close. You're simply choosing to simply believe I have. Let's look at the concept on a very basic level. Can you truly be of help to others if your own well-being is compromised because you didn't think of yourself first? You didn't eat, so you think you can give away your food to others? A very simplistic illustration, but it makes my point. Another way is to consider giving away all your food first, and now it is YOU who is in need. Whether you want to admit it or not, you live according to the "take of myself first" philosophy. It can't be helped. But to ignore it to satisfy some warped sanctimony and posturing as the more caring individual is just goofy, impractical and inevitably harmful. We call it common sense and an honest and objective consideration of the tasks before us.
Time to eat. More later.
For information on how this sort of thing is going in Europe, I refer you to president Macron’s remarks in May.
If you really want a society like he describes, I’d suggest exploring French immigration law.
Art, there’s plenty wrong with all of us. But God is good and He loves us anyway.
Talking with y'all just becomes unmanageable in the limited time I have. A few points:
1. I'm cursing because people are being killed, because children are being torn from their parents - from their mother's nursing breast! - and put into detention camps while there parents are arrested FOR MOVING FROM HERE TO THERE, which ought not be a crime (and truly, it's ONLY a misdemeanor, not the serious crime it's made out to be... and again, it shouldn't even be a misdemeanor!). Atrocities are literally being committed, people are literally being terrorized for merely seeking safety and a better life. This is monstrous and worthy of attacks. It's Nazi/KKK-level shit. It's fucking horrible and immoral as hell. People SHOULD be outraged.
People ARE outraged, and I am one of them.
2. I am not blind to unintended consequences. Indeed, I'm looking at the data and saying we should act rationally (in addition to morally) on this point, because immigrants are a net positive to the US. Silly charges that are not based on reality are not helpful and, indeed, that's the very heart of the problem with immigrants. What you're trying to do to people like me - demonizing us over false claims - is what the Trumpians are doing to immigrants. The only difference is that people are being oppressed, terrorized and killed with the Trump policies, whereas I'm only inconvenienced/slandered.
3. My deal is to look at the data and do what makes sense, morally and rationally.
4. I am FINE if, after looking at the data, it is reasonable to put in limitations (to promote health and safety and save lives), then we should put in limitations. If, for instance, a million people want to move (from anywhere) to Phoenix, Atlanta or any place with water shortages, it's reasonable to find just ways of saying, "Our area can currently only support 10,000 people (or whatever the number is, based on science and the data), so we need to try something else."
BUT, that is NOT turning away only some segment of people moving there (immigrants from another nation OR white evangelicals... it would be wrong to target either group as an isolated target of denied access. That is unjust and, likely, racist - because it almost exclusively happens to dark skinned people).
5. So, again, my point is to look at the data and make wise policy decisions that are just, that do not infringe on civil liberties/human rights and that are rational.
For starters, addressing all the mess that precedes this comment since my last comment.
""Do unto others AFTER you've taken care of yourself and, when you DO unto those "others" (the ones who are criminals and rapists and taking our jobs and trying to kill us...), you don't have to do JUST what you'd want to be done unto yourself. In fact, you can say FUCK 'EM, and send them to their deaths.""
Aside from being a meandering over-the-top rant, it bears no relation to anything I've said...or Craig or Hiram has said. In other words, it's just another lie. In fact, it's a devil rule to attribute falsely this kind of crap to those who have done nothing to suggest it.
"Again: LOOK AT THE DATA. Immigration is a net GAIN for existing citizens."
Again, I've been looking at the data. I'm still in the process of reviewing your other links, too, and from what I've seen in the first two, there is no distinction between those immigrants who go through the proper procedures for entering our country and those who don't. THAT is the issue and any "data" that does not restrict itself to the latter group is not usable data. It's like doing research on a tub of water, reporting on the water, but ignoring the fact that there are other liquids or substances mixed in with the water. It's tainted research and thus tainted data. (now go ahead and suggest that I'm calling the undocumented "tainted"---you've accused us of everything else).
I, on the other hand, have also reviewed data that is specific to the subject of "undocumented" aliens. This report came out at the end of 2017, so it is really up-to-date. It tells quite a different story, and one that is more relevant to this post's topic. Buy don't worry...I'll continue reading the rest of your links, even knowing I'll likely see the same problems the evident in the first two.
"but you can't say, "Oh, look, SOME of the immigrants are misbehaving. That means that immigration needs to be limited.""
Well, of course we can say that, though none of us have so far and I see no reason why you would think we would. Indeed, "limiting" immigration isn't what anyone is discussing...it's a different subject.
"IF you can post helpful positive solutions that lets us live up to the ideals and principles of human rights, THEN we can talk. IF you want to talk about ways to promote healthier homelands for other peoples/nations, by all means, make those suggestions. IF you want to talk about positive ways to find homes and solutions for immigrants in healthy ways that work for all, make those suggestions."
Great ideas. In fact, I've saved them in a file for future blog posts. Here's hint how the first one will look: "IF you can post helpful positive solutions that lets us live up to the ideals and principles of human rights..." It goes like this: embrace conservatism. Progressives sure don't have any ideas. This isn't snark. When the left speaks of "human rights", one can be sure that the rights of others will be negatively impacted. Happens all the time. But that's a topic for later.
"But no more idiotic, demonic blaming of the victims. That's over."
It never began. We haven't done that at all. You simply assert that we have with no evidence to support the allegation. If I was to "blame the victims", I'd have evidence, such as the article that started this whole thing that shows Pacheco's death was the result of his own actions. But then, he's not a victim of the system or of our laws or of Trump or anyone else but his own actions. That's the reality as the article clearly proves.
"IF you want to comment here, begin by acknowledging the data that shows immigration is net gain for citizens."
OK, I've satisfied that rule, at least to the extent of fully reading and understanding the first two links meant to present said data. Thus, I acknowledge the data exists. But if you expect me to agree that the data supports your position on how to deal with the undocumented, I can't because that would be a lie. It doesn't do that at all.
Now I have to address your last comment of June 14, 2018 at 7:44 PM.
1. This is extremely questionable from start to finish. Beginning with the "ripped from mama's breast", I've seen three separate articles that use this type of phrasing, all of which have a decided slant that would suggest you wrote it...if you know what I mean. One dealt with a Somali woman who was a legal resident (Can I say she was a "legal" resident without being deleted?) It appears she was caught up during the time when Trump was justifiably suspending taking refugees from specific countries. Another was a Honduran woman who was undocumented. The third was from 2007. The point here is that "ripped from the mother's breast" seems to be a line used tactically, rather than accurately, and in each case, nothing proves it was no more than a charge by the mother as opposed to it actually happening in fact. This is not to suggest that it couldn't have happened that way, but the use of the phrase throughout these articles suggest it is more slogan than objective reporting. In one article the journalist can't stop going on about it, being sure to make it sound as horrifying as possible, as if merely reporting that it happened wouldn't be enough to arouse the reader's emotional response. Indeed, if such things happen at all, there's few on my side of the divide that would not join in the outrage, for surely there are better ways of dealing with the situation than to "RIP the child from mother's breast". No. I don't really buy it, but I'll concede that it's possible. However, I won't concede that it's S.O.P. or commonplace at all. It's likely an overzealous ICE person, or perhaps a mother who purposely is using her infant as a prop in order to avoid detention or deportation. The articles are too one-sided for honest people to formulate an opinion or judgement. But they sure are fodder for those like you.
Furthermore, you continue to assert that people are being killed BECAUSE of the immigration policies, rather than because those policies were enforced against an alien to disregarded our immigration procedures. Where you whine about blaming victims, you engage in falsely blaming the laws and those who enforce them for the tragic demise of those who are justly deported, basically accusing our government of murdering people. Real nice. In the meantime, very little concern is shown by all the cases of undocumented aliens murdering or otherwise causing the deaths of your fellow Americans. Kate Steinle isn't exactly an anomaly. Here's a sampling. Then there's this site which includes a listing of victims of crimes committed by foreign nationals, including what the site refers to as "illegal aliens", which I believe must mean "undocumented immigrants". (Don't delete me for using the site's terminology) Then of course, there's The Remembrance Project.
Our laws governing the crossing of our borders are meant to reduce, if not eliminate, such things from happening. I can't see how that can be accomplished without even some legitimate refugees being inconvenienced, questioned or otherwise vetted thoroughly to OUR satisfaction. Cries of being terrorized by ICE agents does not tug as hard on my heartstrings as those of girls raped and murdered by those whose existence in this country came about by ignoring our laws. While you pretend we're callous to the pleas of those escaping real dangers, you ignore the FACT that some who make those pleas are liars. We only wish to be allowed to at least talk to these people so as to determine the validity of their claims. You just want us to accept that their claims are real. That's not the Golden Rule at all.
Thus, this also destroys your point #2 which asserts again the lie that Trump regards all immigrants as if they are MS-13 members. There's no demonizing going on from this side of the divide. There's only reason and rationality with regard to consequences that you absolutely do NOT give much concern at all.
"3. My deal is to look at the data and do what makes sense, morally and rationally."
But you clearly are only looking at data that serves your false premise. I'm looking at all data, with no preconceived notions. Indeed, neither is Trump for that matter. He's acknowledging the good and the bad, but focusing on the bad because there is so much of it already here as well as waiting for the chance to get in. The current dilemma, in fact, is caused by around 50 years of lax enforcement of our immigration laws and worse, amnesty granted to those who came without going through the front door, which compels others to take the risk that perhaps they'll be granted amnesty eventually as well. Thus, your "deal" isn't sensible, rational and certainly not moral if it does not include insisting on following the law in order to enter. Keep in mind, however, that following the law does not mean disregarding legitimate cases of people fleeing real dangers to their persons. But even that requires some semblance of order and law. You simply can't expect our country to assume everyone who claims they're in danger is being honest. This is the single sticking point between us, as you have not allowed for the fact that the real issue from our side of the divide is this question of the honesty of the claim. We are not the bad guys because a legitimate claim cannot be verified and the claimant subsequently dies. If we can't know for sure, you expect we should err on the side of...perhaps the chick ain't a liar? or even seeking out a person who is fleeing her? Our government has no such obligations, morally or otherwise.
"BUT, that is NOT turning away only some segment of people moving there (immigrants from another nation OR white evangelicals... it would be wrong to target either group as an isolated target of denied access. That is unjust and, likely, racist - because it almost exclusively happens to dark skinned people)."
This is absolute crap, Dan. If anything justifies foul language, it's this type of BS. The FACT is that most seeking entry are dark skinned. To use that in order to accuse this side of the divide of racism is so vile that even your foul language in response would give the notion too much respect and dignity. Shame on you. It would seem embracing grace is only for the other guy.
Talk about a mess!
Music biz biographies are a top-5 genre for me. Today I started on Micky Dolenz's autobiography. On page 23 he is writing about growing up in the San Fernando Valley of southern California in the 1950s. "Halloween was especially fun because, believe it or not, in those days you could actually walk around the neighborhood in costume and not have to worry about being shot, mugged, raped, or poisoned."
Will you say Dolenz simply has a false recollection of those days? If you grant he's got a point, what demographic phenomenon is primarily responsible for the change? I'm not trying to make this a leading question, I am just wondering how you deal with it.
~ Hiram
I blame the bad people who misbehave for bad changes. I do not, for instance, look at all the white conservative young men who go on killing sprees and then blame ALL white conservative men for this change.
As do we, and your continued assertions otherwise just make you look foolish. As does your newfound obsession with data, yet we see no data.
Of course, your lack of specific policy points isn’t helpful either.
Ignoring the reality of what’s happening after the EU has adopted policy based on your principles (or similar), doesn’t help you either. Personally I’d call what’s happening in Europe “data”. I guess it’s just “data” you ignore.
Show me research and data that says that IMMIGRANTS are to blame for bad actions in Europe, and we can talk.
Merely saying, "Immigrants came and things got worse" is an opinion and one that has too often historically been associated with racism, as a point of fact.
No one is ignoring anything.
The research and data HERE shows that immigration results in net gains for citizens and, aside from that, is moral and supportive of basic human rights.
On the other hand, you have Sessions claiming the Bible supports abducting and jailing children. God, what evil!
Franklin Graham on Sessions/Trump's policy on how we're treating immigrants...
“It’s disgraceful, and it’s terrible to see families ripped apart and I don’t support that one bit,”
GRAHAM is calling it "ripped apart," and he's a seriously flawed conservative. Paul Ryan is condemning it.
Can you all join those conservatives in calling for an end to the ripping apart of families that is happening with this administration?
Dan, if you won’t even do your own research, you really can’t claim to be looking at solutions driven be data, at least not all the data.
1. I’ve never condoned the “ripping apart”, and based on the reports I’ve seen I’m opposed to it. But, it’s been happening since 2014 at least, the fact that you’ve finally worked up some outrage is convenient.
If Paul Ryan is upset about it he should get s bill written, passed, and to the senate ASAP to fix the problem.
I’m going to try very hard not to introduce any additional areas for you to deal with, in the hopes that you can catch up.
"I blame the bad people who misbehave for bad changes."
- Dan
Would you characterize gang members in the USA as being disproportionately white?
~ Hiram
If it’s appropriate to target the “bad people”, then subjecting anyone affiliated with or having tattoos that affiliate them with MS13, should be targeted and prevented from entering or held pending a thorough investigation. Ditto for anyone with a documented affiliation with any terrorist group.
That’s two specific policy items that Dan should be able to agree to.
Hiram, the question is off topic and as far as I can see, irrelevant. But because it's easy, here's the answer:
"* Law enforcement agencies report a greater percentage of Hispanic/Latino and African-American/black gang members compared with other race/ethnicities.
* The most recent figures provided by law enforcement are 46 percent Hispanic/Latino gang members, 35 percent African-American/black gang members, more than 11 percent white gang members, and 7 percent other race/ethnicity of gang members."
Also, even WAY MORE disproportionately, gang members tend to be male (something like 90+%, according to the same source.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7923725288901074422&postID=8169898932954574858
What of it?
But really, don't bother. It's off topic here and my fear is that you're suggesting that because gang members are disproportionately darker skinned, that there is a problem with darker skinned people, inherently, and thus, ought to be more wary of them, naturally.
But we won't travel that racist road, that is precisely the path I warned against. We're past looking for or accepting racist suggestions to these problems.
Beyond that, by that reasoning, then we'd have to say EVEN MORE SO, there is a problem with men, therefore with men, we should be more wary of them as there is something inherently wrong with them.
But the reasoning fails, the attempt to blame the group or assign rules to the group because they are part of that demographic is just flawed reasoning and, given our very real history of racism in this nation (and beyond), we need to fight all that much harder to reject such suggestions.
So, question answered, but no need to go down that path, no response needed.
The topic is can we all start to recognize the notion that free movement and moving to safety is just a natural human right and what can we do to help promote that right (beyond the starting point of recognizing it...)
You'll say this is off-topic so maybe you will delete it. But I'm betting we are on opposite sides on this news story I saw online yesterday. Harvard admissions accepts non-Asians of color who have lower GPAs and standardized test scores than Asians because otherwise their college would be "too Asian" for their diversity ideals.
I'll tell you what I think of that if you ask me to, but I would like to know what you make of it.
~ Hiram
It’s racist, punishes high achievers, rewards lower achievers, and makes the determination solely on race, skin color, or region of origin.
I just read this relevant article at American Thinker and present it here. Given the dictatorial government of Rome over those who fell under their conquering, and given Christ's authority to speak on its morality, the extremes of the two provide a great illustration of what our own response to law and government should be like. In the context of this discussion, as I said, it is quite relevant. Here is a portion:
"By affirming the Roman soldier as having the greatest faith in all of Israel and suggesting that perhaps the sons of the kingdom would be cast out in his favor, Jesus turned the self-righteous politics of the day on its head. Jesus never denounced the severe Roman enforcement of laws as cruel, unusual, or worthy of God's rejection. The Jacobin reactionaries who are sure that Trump's supporters deserve God's repudiation ought to see themselves in the angry reactions that arise from Jesus's endorsement of the Roman military commander. Those who enforce the law are not evil or worthy of our contempt and derision. Even during Jesus's brutal crucifixion by Roman soldiers, he never delivered a homily on the abuses of government power or even a plain statement against capital punishment."
Evil laws should be opposed.
Those who refuse to stand against evil laws - laws that cause harm to innocent men, women and children - are, in effect, cooperating with evil.
Those who use the Bible or "god" to suggest that we should go along with evil are a special sort of evil, themselves.
Those who enforce evil laws are doing evil. We should never mistake reality for illusion.
Jesus said that we will do greater things that he did, so the fact that he did not STOP the evil oppression of Romans is not a sign that we ought not work to stop evil.
Not really engaging with anyone, just clarifying for the purpose of keeping things real.
Hopefully we’ll see the DFL come to the table to solve this legislatively, although the fact that they hung the DACA folk out to dry doesn’t bode well. Lots of complaints, zero proposed bills to solve the problem.
I so appreciate you chiming in with opinions and hunches.
While the suggestion that the Democrats are somehow holding up our gov't from accomplishing anything on DACA IS a popular claim by Trump and racists and xenophobes and others not interested in telling the Truth (this would be another of the daily false claims of Trump... you can't trust anything he says...), it's just not reality that the Democrats are responsible for not coming up with any legislation on this front.
"Two Senate bills dealing with Dreamers failed to get 60 votes. Both proposals included Democratic support. One proposal was sponsored by Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del., and John McCain, R-Ariz., the other by Sens. Mike Rounds, R-N.D., and Angus King, I-Maine, (most Democrats voted for it). The Trump administration opposed both proposals."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar/07/donald-trump/are-democrats-nowhere-be-found-daca-donald-trump-c/
On topic comments are welcome here, but I will just delete false claims as I don't want to contribute to the Fake News problem that is so dangerously prevalent in the world today, and primarily on the Right.
That the Democrats won't just give Trump and the GOP everything they want is not a sign of bad faith on their part.
Again, not directing this to any one in particular, just making it clear that future false claims will be deleted. We MUST fight the fake news threat to our democracy.
I assert this question is on-topic. Current US population is 325 million. What would you like the population to be?
Thoughts on how a nation should favor fecundity, e.g. with income tax breaks for each additional child born?
~ Hiram
Our global population is too large. I'd like us to start slowing down the rate of growth and even reversing it. The planet probably can't handle this many people for an extended time, certainly not more people. It's a finite planet.
Of course, it should go without saying that I'm not suggesting we should tell people how many children they should have, nothing by legislation and certainly not by force (as in China), but we do need to generally discourage large families.
In the US, we have room for growth, but not unlimited growth. I'm not worried about "running out of" space or resources in the US, in general, although some regions already have water shortages due to population strain, so we have to be smart about where we do and don't grow.
I don't have a number I'd like the population to be. You?
We should certainly not encourage more growth, internally, but we could handle more immigrants. Again, I don't know what a number is. You?
I remember commenting as a kid on one family vacation trip up the west coast how crowded freeways were and how smoggy the air was. US population at that time was 205 million. So my ideal number could be something like 150 million.
~ Hiram
Given that I just posted an article about bills that have been approved/sponsored by Democrats and opposed by Trump, claims that I'm not providing specific bill numbers are a bit shallow and lazy.
And claims that they therefore must not exist are just the sort of stupid lies that the Trump administration and their supporters love so much. It just undermines one's credibility when one not only lies, but tells obvious, stupid lies.
Hiram, that's a fine ideal number, but is it based on anything beyond a guess? Not that there's anything wrong with guesses, just wanting to be clear.
Again, we just need to be smart about our policies. If we only have 10 million people in the US but they're all living in Phoenix and Atlanta, then that obviously simply isn't sustainable. Or, if they each drive a car in just those small places, that isn't sustainable.
I don't have a scientifically provable number that says THIS is the most we can handle, because of the variations of rules and policies, where and how people live, etc. I don't think that anyone has that number.
The topic here is not over-population, just for the record. However someone DID post a bunch of pop-conservative articles saying that it isn't a problem.
Scientists disagree...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/08/scientists-more-worried-than-public-about-worlds-growing-population/
But again, that's not the topic here. I'm just deleting fake news.
I will ask this question then entertaining any answers that don't include fake news... Is anyone suggesting that this is not a finite world and that there is not a number of human population that is too much for a finite world?
We are predicted to hit 9 billion I believe in the next 30 to 50 years. We cannot grow infinitely in the finite world. Anyone who suggests that will be a lunatic.
Dan, I can't compute my population number or anything. It's just a feel.
While advancing technology can improve efficiencies and reduce pollution per capita to a degree, it has limitations based on basic facts of nature, such as the laws of thermodynamics. And as noted by Dan, Earth is finite.
~ Hiram
So, you’re suggesting that since you posted a link to some bills that were introduced at some point in the past, that may or may not address the issues that have your panties in a wad, that there is no legislative remedy that the DFL can propose or negotiate going forward?
Since when do questions =“fake news”.
Re population: there is probably a point where the population will be too large to be sustainable. Although that number is probably mitigated by things like increases in agriculture efficiency and potential advances in energy generation. While factors like availability of jobs, housing, transportation, and waste disposal will probably limit the upper limit.
SOME OF WHAT I WOULD SPECIFICALLY PROPOSE FOR HANDLING IMMIGRATION AND FOREIGN POLICY CONCERNS...
1. End the criminalization of Immigration, especially and specifically for those seeking safety/a better life.
2. I would still have check points and background checks as we do now, but it would NOT be a crime if you ended up across the border without the proper documentation. I would not take children from their families if they were found across the border without documentation. It would be a paperwork problem, and you would be required to get your paperwork in order, but NOT a crime, because it isn't a crime, morally speaking. Criminalizing seeking safety IS a crime.
3. Engage in public/private/ONG partnerships that will provide safe havens in countries where a high degree of danger exists. 3a. FUND THE STATE DEPARTMENT sufficiently, this can be done by ending the huge investments in the Defense Department, as many military leaders request be done. This is done recognizing that more nations being stable and safe reduce the need for military responses.
3b. Make financial reparations for all the poorer nations that we have exploited or caused damage to. We should begin, for instance, by paying our war crimes debt to Nicaragua, but it would extend far beyond that.
4. Implement a targeted effort to improve living conditions in countries with high numbers of people who want to immigrate.
5. Implement a more accurate/faster screening system.
6. Eliminate quotas based on country of origin.
7. Work with other countries to facilitate spreading out immigration. As a very large and extremely wealthy nation, our fair share would be larger than smaller nations with fewer resources. Of course.
8. Base immigration policy on evaluation of individual situations. IF someone reports fleeing danger/starvation, take that claim seriously, because turning away someone in such circumstances would be criminal.
9. Establish a four pronged system to effectively deal with different types of immigrants. 1. Highly skilled immigrants, 2. Refugees, 3. Lower skilled immigrants, 4. Criminals/terrorists. If there were any priorities given, it would be to those fleeing violence/starvation.
10. Since we would have decriminalized immigration, Sanctuary cities would probably disappear... but to the degree that any cities were still providing sanctuary for whatever reason, Good on them, may their tribe increase. Providing sanctuary IS the business of government when it's properly working, as well as the business of individuals, churches and other civic groups.
11. Anyone who lies about their status, age, or any material fact that would give them an advantage to immigrate, will be permanently blocked from access to the US... would be a policy that would go away because it is presumptuous and probably racist. Anyone who lies about their application BECAUSE they wish to cause harm would be held accountable, as all people who wish to cause harm are held accountable. Lying about one's age or other points for reasons of escaping violence is a reasonable thing to do. Nonetheless, it will be discouraged and we'll let people know that the old way of criminalizing immigration is done away with.
With criminalized immigration and the demonization and racist tropes espoused by the current administration go away, it will become apparent that the old sheriff is gone and a new, more reasonable and adult and moral day has come.
It certainly took quite a while, but it’s an interesting list.
Are we allowed to comment on your list without being forced to agree under pain of deletion, or will we be allowed to engage in a free and open discussion on the merits of your suggestions?
Art, may I suggest you post at your blog. That way you don’t have to worry.
He hasn't shown a willingness...or perhaps he lacks the time...to address my comments there. And despite the usual difficulties, I remain, as ever, sincerely interested in at least coming to a legitimate understanding.
People who don't recognize basic moral principles and human decency as a starting point will always reach bad conclusions on specific rules. There's not much point on talking about specific rules until one recognizes the reality of basic human rights.
But why should I agree with what YOU dictate must be the proper understanding of what constitutes basic moral principles, particularly when, even by your standards, you haven't established that our laws are actually in conflict with them? Your list, as presented, does little to suggest that they do, especially as so much of that list endorses what you're criticizing.
Principle I: People have the right to self determination.
Principle II: Those who'd take away (or try to) the human right to self determination are breaking a moral and rational law.
Principle III: If a person and or their family have their lives threatened in Place One, and they can't figure out what else to do about it there, it is reasonable and moral for them to move from Place One to a Place of perceived safety... Place Two.
This is entirely in keeping with Principle I.
Principle IV: People have the right to self determination for THEMSELVES, not for others. This means that they can't do things for themselves that will cause harm to others, as that would be a violation of Principle I. And it means that they can't determine for Others, as that would be a violation of Principle I.
These are timeless, rational, moral positions/principles that are self evident, at least for those who believe in human rights and liberty.
Can you agree with these self evident principles?
There is only one rational, non-delusional, moral answer here, Marshall. I'm not dictating anything, I'm pointing out universal principles accepted by those who believe in human rights/basic decency.
I believe you probably can and should be able to agree with these principles, as stated, but you tell me.
But if you don't and if they are, indeed, universal self evident moral principles, then perhaps you can see why I'm not interested in having a dialog with someone so deluded. To what end?
"These are timeless, rational, moral positions/principles that are self evident, at least for those who believe in human rights and liberty."
"But if you don't and if they are, indeed, universal self evident moral principles,..."
I'm curious to see if you can explain the apparent contradiction between your two statements? In your first, you appear to be making a declarative statement about what things "are". In the second, you appear to be saying that it's possible that these things are not the way things "are" but how things might be.
I could agree that there is a "right" of limited self determination. I wrote a post quite a while back about human autonomy, which didn't seem to get much response, but does seem to be asking a similar question.
I appreciate, and thank you in advance for your explanation.
In context, the point I'm making is this to Marshall, "if in your mind these aren't Universal principles... AND YET, it turns out that you are mistaken..."
Thank you. I appreciate you clarifying that you believe these rights to be universal, timeless, rational, and objectivity moral rights.
Dan,
I need to know if you are using "self determination" as a synonym for "liberty". If not, I need to know what you mean by it...how you define it.
As to "Principle III", according to internationally accepted rules regarding asylum, those fleeing "Place One" are to be granted asylum in "Place Two", which according to those internationally accepted rules, is the country on the other side of "Place One's" border. So, for example, someone fleeing Guatemala is, by internationally accepted rules, must be granted asylum from the dangers he/she if fleeing by Mexico, Belize, Honduras or El Salvador. Do you have any principle of which you'd care to remind any of those countries? This isn't a flip question.
I cannot stress more emphatically how sincere I am in requiring answers to these before I can provide a legitimate response to your question. I say this fully aware that you can't help but to have judged me in such an unjustified manner as to assume the worst of every comment, question, objection or critique I post. Nothing I can ever do about that but to insist you accept my assurances to the contrary. You can also rest assured that I'll leave no doubt when snark is employed.
Finally, you are indeed dictating, regardless of my response. You are dictating that your understanding of liberty must be regarded as accurate. Without debating whether or not I might possibly agree with your understanding or not, or whether or not your understanding is even possibly correct, the fact that you are dictating your opinion as fact is beyond debate. With that said, I'm still willing to respond once my clarifying question is answered. Again, it is not a flip response regardless of what you might want to believe. I will no more defend myself on this point.
I mean it as I believe it is typically defined in the Human Rights/Enlightenment world, and as it's defined in MW:
free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion
With, of course, the caveats that you don't have the right to determine to harm others or to do that which is innately impossible. I don't have the right, under self determination, to sprout wings and fly like a free bird. I don't have the right to determine for myself that I want to start fires at other people's houses.
So...you reject the rest of the definition from MW? That is, the second one:
"determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status"
That one sounds like us, a territorial unit we call the US of A determining the criteria for immigration, doesn't it?
In other words, you seem to suggest that one group of people...the USA...must subordinate their right to self-determination to the right of another group...the foreigner. Is that not the reality of it?
In yet other words, it turns out I had neither misunderstood, nor even disagreed with the principle, which is what I've indicated already...likely more than once. It is not at all a point of contention. What is, is how this should manifest. That's where we're butting heads. So here's some clarification:
I do not assume ill intent of any immigrant regardless of legal status (and please, for the love of all that's holy---don't give me crap about using a perfectly appropriate term simply because you want to appear to have the moral high ground...there's no such thing as "honest discussion" or "working toward solutions" if one side gets to dictate how the other must speak, particularly when nothing untoward is in any way intended----don't assume racism just because I don't see this issue your way). Again, I do not assume ill intent on the part of any immigrant. I simply acknowledge that there are some who do harbor ill intent to one degree or another. One cannot be adult in the real world without acknowledging that evil exists, and it only exists in people. As such, our laws...ALL laws...act on that assumption and address the manifestations of ill intent by prohibition of certain behaviors and punishments for engaging in them.
So, our laws, rather than being immoral or evil, simply take a person aside and ask, "you have broken a law...why?" and proceed from there. That's what happens to those who enter without benefit of our policies, ports of entry or inquiry of our immigration officials. And since they are in breach, the LOGICAL and RATIONAL position for law enforcement to make is that this person, having already broken a law by entering in the manner he did, is more likely than one who entered legally to be guilty of something else. The breaking of the law indicts the character of the law breaker. It is not for law enforcement to make judgements regarding what motivated the alien in question to act as he did. That's the justice side of law, not the enforcement side. (Just watch the opening to every episode of "Law and Order" on NBC)
The current process...that is prior to Trump's recent exec order...is made more hellish by the mass of humanity that have committed the same misdemeanor...which is indeed a crime...as well as by those who made the effort to go through the process. Those who chose to side step it are making it harder on those who chose to go through it. This is the reality of the issue before us. The principles don't enter into it because the laws that are in place do not negate them in any way. It's the breaking of the laws that do that. THIS is where we disagree, but you're on the wrong side of it, because you're complicity is making a crap situation worse by corrupting the "order" half of law and order.
That crap situation extends to beyond this detention situation because eventually they will be released before their review happens due to the incredibly backlog. Now, those who AREN'T people of character, AS WELL as the good are released into our population and so many have indeed gone on to cause trouble, including trouble that has resulted in rape, murder, theft and other crimes. Reducing enforcement, lightening it, has led to these problems. Now, the result of the open borders position has manifested in these crimes because YOU don't know which of these people are of the good or the bad character. You think you're doing people a favor by leaning toward the assumption that if they want to be here, they should be allowed with as little question as possible. That just ain't workin'.
So yeah. I'm totally down with the principles. But they aren't the only principles of consideration in this issue. They're just the only principles you care to consider. Show me, don't just tell me, I'm wrong. I can take it.
Post a Comment