How do we stop THEM!
Joseph Meehan
of the US. While this is a political issue, I believe it has a strong link
to our faith.
The general issue is many people are upset because too many of THEM are
coming into the US. For the most part the THEM are Hispanic people from
Mexico and some other countries. More and more it is including people from
many other countries. Usually they come to the US, both legally and
illegally to take jobs that few of US would accept.
I find the whole thing interesting. I wonder if those coming into the
US looked and talked like the rest of the people in the US would they be so
feared and hated?
I wonder how many of the people objecting to these people have
grandparents who came to the US with few skills and poor English and faced
some of the same attitudes? (My grandparents did.)
Why are so many people so fearful?
Have you (as a Catholic) noted that a very high percentage of this hate
is directed towards those coming from countries that are primarily Catholic?
I wonder how many of the the religious right are backing these new laws
and I wonder how many Catholics and how many of both groups have stopped to
ask themselves what God would want?
Somehow I see this as a continuation of what seems to be the work of the
devil, "I want to be first." "I don't want to be second, even if it means I
would have more (money food, freedom etc.) I just want to be first." This
seems to come into play with jobs, citizenship, housing, driving ("I have to
be first, I can't let someone in front of me.") etc.
Your thoughts respected.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
Jim Kalb
jm> In the US the government is discussing new rules on how to
jm> keep THEM out of the US. While this is a political issue, I
jm> believe it has a strong link to our faith.
Public life obviously has a strong link to our faith. What's with the
"THEM" though? Disagreement with you on immigration need not mean
stupidity and malice.
It seems to me there are good reasons for wanting to restrict
immigration. Do you think there should be no restrictions on immigration
at all? If you don't you are a restrictionist. If you do though would it
be a good thing if the poorer half of the population of Bangla Desh
moved here? Is a social structure like Brazil desirable?
jm> The general issue is many people are upset because too many of
jm> THEM are coming into the US. For the most part the THEM are
jm> Hispanic people from Mexico and some other countries. More and
jm> more it is including people from many other countries. Usually
jm> they come to the US, both legally and illegally to take jobs that
jm> few of US would accept.
Well, yes, if there are lots of poor immigrants coming here then there
will be lots of employers offering jobs on terms and conditions only a
poor immigrant would be willing to accept. You end up with rich people
on top and lots of poor people down below many of whom don't even speak
the same language and so end up socially rather isolated. Not everybody
thinks that's a good idea.
jm> I find the whole thing interesting. I wonder if those coming
jm> into the US looked and talked like the rest of the people in the
jm> US would they be so feared and hated?
What reason do you have to think opposition to mass immigration has to
do with fear and hatred? Presumably it means people think things would
go better if their were less immigration. "Fear and hatred" is an odd
way to talk about that kind of judgment.
jm> I wonder how many of the people objecting to these people have
jm> grandparents who came to the US with few skills and poor English
jm> and faced some of the same attitudes? (My grandparents did.)
There are reasons for and reasons against accepting lots of immigrants
with few skills and poor English. There's no reason the pluses and
minuses couldn't sort out differently at different times. For example,
when there's cheap land, a need for unskilled labor, and basically no
welfare system then it very likely has benefits on both sides. Otherwise
perhaps otherwise.
At bottom, though, it's not obvious that the whole of my family history
must have been a good thing. If World War II had never occurred I would
never have come into existence. If my ancestors had never been able to
come to America ditto. That doesn't prove either was a good thing.
jm> Why are so many people so fearful?
Which people?
jm> Have you (as a Catholic) noted that a very high percentage of
jm> this hate is directed towards those coming from countries that are
jm> primarily Catholic?
What hate?
jm> I wonder how many of the the religious right are backing these
jm> new laws and I wonder how many Catholics and how many of both
jm> groups have stopped to ask themselves what God would want?
Presumably God thinks it's OK to consider points like these:
1. Political self-government requires trust and mutual understandings
and relationships that take time to build. Those normally depend on
common hopes, loyalties, memories and so on. You aren't likely to
find much of that in a demographically unstable and multicultural
society. So if God likes political self-government and general social
friendship he probably thinks borders and stability of populations
are OK.
2. Lack of self-government has some specific consequences God might not
like. At present, multiculturalism means that we have too many groups
with too little in common morally so we can't be ruled in accordance
with any particular moral tradition. How we live has to be prescribed
to us by experts based on some sort of ideal of the autonomous
individual making his decisions based on his own will. Minorities
support rule by experts like judges and bureaucrats -- they vote for
the liberal parties -- because they don't trust the native majority.
One result is powerful support for the rules that have been
prescribed to us in recent decades regarding abortion and sexual
matters generally. The more immigrants (California, Toronto, New
York, Boston) the more support you get for those things no matter how
wonderfully Catholic and devoted to family values the immigrants are.
It is possible God does not like that result.
3. Immigration isn't necessarily that good for immigrants and their
children. Their inherited culture no longer gets public support and
what they pick up are the most easily learned and so crudest aspects
of American pop culture. That's nothing to live by. You might look up
the statistics for things like health, family stability and
illegitimacy among children of Hispanic immigrants. My guess is that
God doesn't like the direction those figures go.
4. It's not necessarily that good for immigrants' home countries either.
The most capable and energetic people leave. People go elsewhere and
send back remittances instead of solving their problems at home and
developing what's there. God might not think that's the best result
either.
jm> Somehow I see this as a continuation of what seems to be the
jm> work of the devil, "I want to be first." "I don't want to be
jm> second, even if it means I would have more (money food, freedom
jm> etc.) I just want to be first." This seems to come into play with
jm> jobs, citizenship, housing, driving ("I have to be first, I can't
jm> let someone in front of me.") etc.
Is there a term in moral theology for unnecessary imputation of bad
motives to the majority of one's fellow countrymen?
jm> Your thoughts respected.
Likewise.
jm> -- Joseph Meehan
jm> Dia duit
--
Jim Kalb
Joseph Meehan
> "jm" == Joseph Meehan <sligojo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> jm> In the US the government is discussing new rules on how to
> jm> keep THEM out of the US. While this is a political issue, I
> jm> believe it has a strong link to our faith.
>
> Public life obviously has a strong link to our faith. What's with the
> "THEM" though? Disagreement with you on immigration need not mean
> stupidity and malice.
The THEM is any group that is not ourselves. They can be from Bangla
Desh or they can be from New Orleans.
>
> It seems to me there are good reasons for wanting to restrict
> immigration. Do you think there should be no restrictions on
> immigration at all? If you don't you are a restrictionist. If you do
> though would it be a good thing if the poorer half of the population
> of Bangla Desh moved here?
It may well be, IMO
Is a social structure like Brazil
> desirable?
I don't know enough about the social structure of Brazil to say.
>
> jm> The general issue is many people are upset because too many
> of jm> THEM are coming into the US. For the most part the THEM are
> jm> Hispanic people from Mexico and some other countries. More and
> jm> more it is including people from many other countries. Usually
> jm> they come to the US, both legally and illegally to take jobs that
> jm> few of US would accept.
>
> Well, yes, if there are lots of poor immigrants coming here then there
> will be lots of employers offering jobs on terms and conditions only a
> poor immigrant would be willing to accept. You end up with rich people
> on top and lots of poor people down below many of whom don't even
> speak the same language and so end up socially rather isolated. Not
> everybody thinks that's a good idea.
But who decides (should decide) that it is a good idea? Is the the US
or the THEM?
>
> jm> I find the whole thing interesting. I wonder if those coming
> jm> into the US looked and talked like the rest of the people in the
> jm> US would they be so feared and hated?
>
> What reason do you have to think opposition to mass immigration has to
> do with fear and hatred? Presumably it means people think things would
> go better if their were less immigration.
What people think things would be better? It is just the US or is it
just the THEM or is it everyone?
> "Fear and hatred" is an odd
> way to talk about that kind of judgment.
Maybe, but in my experience it is true. People don't want THEM next
door, they don't want THEM in our country (a country that most of us came to
after 1400 when the WE were only Native Americans. I hear people saying
THEY are dirty, THEY are criminals, THEY will take my job, THEY will ....
well I think you get the idea. There is fear.
>
> jm> I wonder how many of the people objecting to these people
> have jm> grandparents who came to the US with few skills and poor
> English jm> and faced some of the same attitudes? (My grandparents
> did.)
>
> There are reasons for and reasons against accepting lots of immigrants
> with few skills and poor English.
I wonder if the Native Americans felt the same way about the foreigners
who could not speak their languages or could not grow crops over here?
> There's no reason the pluses and
> minuses couldn't sort out differently at different times. For example,
> when there's cheap land, a need for unskilled labor, and basically no
> welfare system then it very likely has benefits on both sides.
> Otherwise perhaps otherwise.
So who should decide when it is a good time? Are we willing to let THEM
vote on it?
>
> At bottom, though, it's not obvious that the whole of my family
> history must have been a good thing. If World War II had never
> occurred I would never have come into existence. If my ancestors had
> never been able to come to America ditto. That doesn't prove either
> was a good thing.
>
> jm> Why are so many people so fearful?
>
> Which people?
The US.
>
> jm> Have you (as a Catholic) noted that a very high percentage of
> jm> this hate is directed towards those coming from countries that
> are jm> primarily Catholic?
>
> What hate?
See above.
>
> jm> I wonder how many of the the religious right are backing
> these jm> new laws and I wonder how many Catholics and how many of
> both jm> groups have stopped to ask themselves what God would want?
>
> Presumably God thinks it's OK to consider points like these:
>
> 1. Political self-government requires trust and mutual understandings
> and relationships that take time to build. Those normally depend on
> common hopes, loyalties, memories and so on. You aren't likely to
> find much of that in a demographically unstable and multicultural
> society. So if God likes political self-government and general
> social friendship he probably thinks borders and stability of
> populations are OK.
Frankly I believe you will find a great deal of exactly that from
immigrants. They may lack some experience, but from those I have spoken to,
they make up for it with enthusiasm.
>
> 2. Lack of self-government has some specific consequences God might
> not like. At present, multiculturalism means that we have too many
> groups with too little in common morally so we can't be ruled in
> accordance with any particular moral tradition.
I don't share that pessimism. How is today's groups any different than
all the prior groups coming into the US.
> How we live has to
> be prescribed to us by experts based on some sort of ideal of the
> autonomous individual making his decisions based on his own will.
> Minorities support rule by experts like judges and bureaucrats --
> they vote for the liberal parties -- because they don't trust the
> native majority. One result is powerful support for the rules that
> have been prescribed to us in recent decades regarding abortion and
> sexual matters generally. The more immigrants (California, Toronto,
> New York, Boston) the more support you get for those things no
> matter how wonderfully Catholic and devoted to family values the
> immigrants are. It is possible God does not like that result.
Could you restate that so I can understand how it relates to the
subject? I just don't understand your point.
>
> 3. Immigration isn't necessarily that good for immigrants and their
> children. Their inherited culture no longer gets public support and
> what they pick up are the most easily learned and so crudest aspects
> of American pop culture. That's nothing to live by. You might look
> up the statistics for things like health, family stability and
> illegitimacy among children of Hispanic immigrants. My guess is that
> God doesn't like the direction those figures go.
I am going to assume you did not mean it this way, but that argument I
have heard many times before. 50 years ago people used that same kind of
argument and others trying to tell African Americans that they did not want
to live in white neighborhoods.
>
> 4. It's not necessarily that good for immigrants' home countries
> either. The most capable and energetic people leave. People go
> elsewhere and send back remittances instead of solving their
> problems at home and developing what's there. God might not think
> that's the best result either.
>
> jm> Somehow I see this as a continuation of what seems to be the
> jm> work of the devil, "I want to be first." "I don't want to be
> jm> second, even if it means I would have more (money food, freedom
> jm> etc.) I just want to be first." This seems to come into play with
> jm> jobs, citizenship, housing, driving ("I have to be first, I can't
> jm> let someone in front of me.") etc.
>
> Is there a term in moral theology for unnecessary imputation of bad
> motives to the majority of one's fellow countrymen?
>
> jm> Your thoughts respected.
>
> Likewise.
>
> jm> -- Joseph Meehan
>
> jm> Dia duit
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
Jim Kalb
jm> The THEM is any group that is not ourselves. They can be from
jm> Bangla Desh or they can be from New Orleans.
Using all caps is distracting. Why do you do that? It seems to me out of
place in a normal civil conversation.
Do you think there's anything wrong in principle with distinguishing us
from them, and on the whole looking after our interests more than
theirs? To my mind it's basically the same issue as with private
property. In some grand sense everybody's responsible for everything,
but in order to have a system that actually works you need to divide
things up so that individuals, families and groups of various sorts have
something definite and localized to look after.
>> If you
>> do though would it be a good thing if the poorer half of the
>> population of Bangla Desh moved here?
jm> It may well be, IMO
jm> Is a social structure like Brazil
>> desirable?
jm> I don't know enough about the social structure of Brazil to
jm> say.
There's huge distance between top and bottom, with masses of people at
the bottom. Most people think that's bad politically and socially.
jm> But who decides (should decide) that it is a good idea? Is the
jm> the US or the THEM?
This is the same issue that comes up in connection with use of property.
The Americans possess America, it's their country, which means that they
are responsible for what happens there, the well-being of the people
there, how its resources get used and so on. So it's up to them who
moves there. It's up to foreigners of course whether they want to have
anything to do with America or Americans.
The alternatives, as a matter of general principle, seem to be (1) no
government and (2) a single universal government. Both would be worse
than what we have now I think. I suppose you could also eliminate the
connection between nationality and territory, so that it wouldn't be
clear which government or group of people an area of land belonged to.
That would clearly multiply disputes though.
jm> Maybe, but in my experience it is true. People don't want THEM
jm> next door, they don't want THEM in our country (a country that
jm> most of us came to after 1400 when the WE were only Native
jm> Americans. I hear people saying THEY are dirty, THEY are
jm> criminals, THEY will take my job, THEY will .... well I think you
jm> get the idea. There is fear.
I don't know who you talk to. In any case, it seems to me that public
issues should be decided by reference to the best arguments not the
worst. So if somebody presents bad arguments the best thing is to ignore
them and ask what the good arguments are.
I'd imagine that if somebody proposed abolishing private property or
doing away with prisons some people who opposed the change would say all
sorts of greedy and self-centered and hateful things. It wouldn't follow
that the abolition of private property and prisons is a good idea.
jm> I wonder if the Native Americans felt the same way about the
jm> foreigners who could not speak their languages or could not grow
jm> crops over here?
I'm sure a lot of them didn't like it. And in fact on the whole it
didn't turn out that well for them. If a Sioux Indian didn't like the
white men moving in and killing all the buffalo, and thought it would be
a good idea to build a fence to keep them out, would that prove
(assuming a fence would have been practical) that he was bad or stupid?
>> 1. Political self-government requires trust and mutual
>> understandings and relationships that take time to build. Those
>> normally depend on common hopes, loyalties, memories and so on. You
>> aren't likely to find much of that in a demographically unstable
>> and multicultural society. So if God likes political
>> self-government and general social friendship he probably thinks
>> borders and stability of populations are OK.
jm> Frankly I believe you will find a great deal of exactly that
jm> from immigrants. They may lack some experience, but from those I
jm> have spoken to, they make up for it with enthusiasm.
I live in New York and don't see that. Individuals of course are often
enthusiastic and public spirited but that's always true. You have that
with or without immigrants. In government how groups act is also quite
important though and groups don't trust each other when background,
habits, attitudes etc. are quite different. A lot of politics becomes a
matter of trying to defuse group conflicts and group payoffs. When that
happens the public interest becomes harder to find or agree on and the
situation becomes easier to manipulate.
>> 2. Lack of self-government has some specific consequences God
>> might not like. At present, multiculturalism means that we have too
>> many groups with too little in common morally so we can't be ruled
>> in accordance with any particular moral tradition.
jm> I don't share that pessimism. How is today's groups any
jm> different than all the prior groups coming into the US.
They're more radically different from each other. Less in common means
more conflict and less possibility of voluntary cooperation and self
government. Also, we have a much larger and more powerful class of
experts, administrators, judges, bureaucrats etc. ready to step in and
say "Well we have Muslims and Buddhists and Voodooists as well as
Christians and a few Jews here. That means that if we let any sort of
reference to religion or any particular moral tradition into public life
that will be unjust and cause disputes. So we'll insist on total public
godlessness and we'll insist on basing the moral aspects of the law on
the idea of the individual who is subject to no moral tradition at all
but just does what he feels like doing within limits of public order
that we will set because we're experts. So if you want to have
restrictions on abortion or don't want mandatory training for
schoolchildren in gay safe sex techniques too bad. You're just trying to
enforce your particular values on a multicultural society so go away."
That's actually pretty much what's happening now.
I should add that the old immigration wasn't that good for
self-government either. Cities with lots of immigrants weren't noted for
good government. And there's the basic problem that the new people don't
trust the old. If you want I could dig out a reference to studies (by an
Italian immigrant) of the politics of Italian communities in Toronto.
All the Catholic patriarchal family values immigrants from Italian
villages voted for antireligious feminist pro-abortion multicultural
parties because they thought those parties would represent their
interests over against those of the native English Canadians. If you
don't like politics to be based on ethnic conflict then ethnic
instability of the sort mass immigration creates is something to avoid.
>> How we live has to be prescribed to us by experts based on some
>> sort of ideal of the autonomous individual making his decisions
>> based on his own will. Minorities support rule by experts like
>> judges and bureaucrats -- they vote for the liberal parties --
>> because they don't trust the native majority. One result is
>> powerful support for the rules that have been prescribed to us in
>> recent decades regarding abortion and sexual matters generally. The
>> more immigrants (California, Toronto, New York, Boston) the more
>> support you get for those things no matter how wonderfully Catholic
>> and devoted to family values the immigrants are. It is possible God
>> does not like that result.
jm> Could you restate that so I can understand how it relates to
jm> the subject? I just don't understand your point.
Does the immediately preceeding discussion clarify things at all?
>> 3. Immigration isn't necessarily that good for immigrants and
>> their children. Their inherited culture no longer gets public
>> support and what they pick up are the most easily learned and so
>> crudest aspects of American pop culture. That's nothing to live by.
>> You might look up the statistics for things like health, family
>> stability and illegitimacy among children of Hispanic immigrants.
>> My guess is that God doesn't like the direction those figures go.
jm> I am going to assume you did not mean it this way, but that
jm> argument I have heard many times before. 50 years ago people used
jm> that same kind of argument and others trying to tell African
jm> Americans that they did not want to live in white neighborhoods.
Very likely some of the people presenting the argument were
well-intentioned. Once again, it's a mistake to assume that people who
disagree with you on some basic social issue are simply bad people with
bad motivations.
You should look at statistics on the status and well-being of African
Americans. The post-60s period has not in fact been that good for them.
They were making faster economic progress before the 60s. The long-term
drop in their poverty rate for example came to an end in the late 60s.
Crime, illegitimacy, imprisonment etc. rates shot up enormously. I think
their illegitimacy rate is something like 80% today, and there are more
young black men in prison than in college. As to general culture, I
think jazz and even the Detroit sound show a much healthier outlook and
way of life than rap and hip hop.
I don't think Condoleeza Rice (a product of the old black bourgoisie)
and Colin Powell (son of ligbt-skinned West Indians) outweigh all that.
How ordinary black people end up matters. So maybe there was something
to what those people 50 years ago were saying. Man is a social animal,
which means that people on the whole live better if they live in
definite communities. You can't form a community arbitrarily though,
just by saying you want one to exist. To a very large extent you have to
work with what you have.
I should add: if you care about the well being of African Americans and
other people who often have trouble making a go of it and often rely on
jobs that are not so high on the ladder, you might hesitate before you
import tens of millions of competitors for those same jobs.
--
Jim Kalb
darth_s...@yahoo.com
Why cant they?
Joseph Meehan
> hey Joe, get a clue! your grandparents came here legally.
> Why cant they?
That is my point. Why can't they?
Fred Ward
<darth_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143206744.5...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> hey Joe, get a clue! your grandparents came here legally.
> Why cant they?
Fred :
My question as well . This country was built and fought for as a
place of refuge for ALL . ALL are welcome to come live here , BUT ,
there is a legal requirement to do this . My folks and millions of others
went by the rules . Now are they who did , required to applaud those who
thumb their collective noses at the Country's legal system ? No way .
Joseph Meehan
Why do you think so many are here illegally? Is it because we welcome
them, or is it because we are trying to keep them out?
Immigration is a tangled mess of restrictions, mostly put in place to
keep "Them" out.
Personally I am ashamed of many of the things the US government does and
the policy of keeping "Them" out is one of them.
If you are from a wealthy white politically correct country, you can
usually come to the US easily and can generally stay of if you like get
citizenship. However is you are not white or come from a politically
incorrect or poor country, just try to get in much less say.
Joseph Meehan
> "jm" == Joseph Meehan <sligojo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> jm> The THEM is any group that is not ourselves. They can be from
> jm> Bangla Desh or they can be from New Orleans.
>
> Using all caps is distracting. Why do you do that? It seems to me out
> of place in a normal civil conversation.
I also find all caps distracting and difficult to read. However I don't
object to ALL CAPS used selectively to point out something special about a
specific word or phrase.
>
> Do you think there's anything wrong in principle with distinguishing
> us from them, and on the whole looking after our interests more than
> theirs?
Define "ours" and "theirs"
> To my mind it's basically the same issue as with private
> property. In some grand sense everybody's responsible for everything,
> but in order to have a system that actually works you need to divide
> things up so that individuals, families and groups of various sorts
> have something definite and localized to look after.
>
> >> If you
> >> do though would it be a good thing if the poorer half of the
> >> population of Bangla Desh moved here?
>
> jm> It may well be, IMO
>
> jm> Is a social structure like Brazil
> >> desirable?
>
> jm> I don't know enough about the social structure of Brazil to
> jm> say.
>
> There's huge distance between top and bottom, with masses of people at
> the bottom. Most people think that's bad politically and socially.
I believe it is bad when there are large differences in wealth. I
believe it is worse when those differences have been created and protected
by political powers of those who have the wealth. While my view is
consistent with my view on the question I presented, it is not directly
related.
>
> jm> But who decides (should decide) that it is a good idea? Is
> the jm> the US or the THEM?
>
> This is the same issue that comes up in connection with use of
> property. The Americans possess America, it's their country, which
> means that they are responsible for what happens there, the
> well-being of the people there, how its resources get used and so on.
> So it's up to them who moves there. It's up to foreigners of course
> whether they want to have anything to do with America or Americans.
So are you saying that it is NOT our responsibility for what may
happened to people out side the United States? Is that what you believe God
has tried to teach us?
>
> The alternatives, as a matter of general principle, seem to be (1) no
> government and (2) a single universal government. Both would be worse
> than what we have now I think. I suppose you could also eliminate the
> connection between nationality and territory, so that it wouldn't be
> clear which government or group of people an area of land belonged to.
> That would clearly multiply disputes though.
Perhaps you have missed at least one alternative: Allow individuals to
freely make the choice of where they which to live and under what government
they wish to live under.
>
> jm> Maybe, but in my experience it is true. People don't want
> THEM jm> next door, they don't want THEM in our country (a country
> that jm> most of us came to after 1400 when the WE were only Native
> jm> Americans. I hear people saying THEY are dirty, THEY are
> jm> criminals, THEY will take my job, THEY will .... well I think you
> jm> get the idea. There is fear.
>
> I don't know who you talk to. In any case, it seems to me that public
> issues should be decided by reference to the best arguments not the
> worst. So if somebody presents bad arguments the best thing is to
> ignore them and ask what the good arguments are.
Could be, but in my experience the reasons real people tell me they
don't want "them" in the US are as above. I have yet to hear someone say
that those Mexican workers should be sent back to Mexico because they would
be better there. It is because they are not us and they don't belong here.
Do you really believe otherwise?
>
> I'd imagine that if somebody proposed abolishing private property or
> doing away with prisons some people who opposed the change would say
> all sorts of greedy and self-centered and hateful things. It wouldn't
> follow that the abolition of private property and prisons is a good
> idea.
I would seem you are getting well off the subject. I don't see the
connection.
>
> jm> I wonder if the Native Americans felt the same way about the
> jm> foreigners who could not speak their languages or could not grow
> jm> crops over here?
>
> I'm sure a lot of them didn't like it. And in fact on the whole it
> didn't turn out that well for them. If a Sioux Indian didn't like the
> white men moving in and killing all the buffalo, and thought it would
> be a good idea to build a fence to keep them out, would that prove
> (assuming a fence would have been practical) that he was bad or
> stupid?
Your analogy breaks down. The Europeans made little or no effort to
respect the rights of the native Americans. Today's immigrants do.
>
> >> 1. Political self-government requires trust and mutual
> >> understandings and relationships that take time to build. Those
> >> normally depend on common hopes, loyalties, memories and so on.
> You >> aren't likely to find much of that in a demographically
> unstable >> and multicultural society. So if God likes political
> >> self-government and general social friendship he probably thinks
> >> borders and stability of populations are OK.
>
> jm> Frankly I believe you will find a great deal of exactly that
> jm> from immigrants. They may lack some experience, but from those I
> jm> have spoken to, they make up for it with enthusiasm.
>
> I live in New York and don't see that. Individuals of course are often
> enthusiastic and public spirited but that's always true. You have that
> with or without immigrants. In government how groups act is also quite
> important though and groups don't trust each other when background,
> habits, attitudes etc. are quite different.
Heck, I don't need a group to be immigrants to not trust them. I don't
t trust the other political party. Frankly I trust many of the immigrant
groups far more than I trust many "American" groups. However does that
really matter? How is your argument any different from those made by the
segregationist of the 60's?
> A lot of politics becomes
> a matter of trying to defuse group conflicts and group payoffs. When
> that happens the public interest becomes harder to find or agree on
> and the situation becomes easier to manipulate.
We don't need immigrants to have difficulty finding political consensus.
>
> >> 2. Lack of self-government has some specific consequences God
> >> might not like. At present, multiculturalism means that we have
> too >> many groups with too little in common morally so we can't be
> ruled >> in accordance with any particular moral tradition.
>
> jm> I don't share that pessimism. How is today's groups any
> jm> different than all the prior groups coming into the US.
>
> They're more radically different from each other. Less in common means
> more conflict and less possibility of voluntary cooperation and self
> government.
Do you have evidence of this? I find diversity means more ideas, good
ones, fresh approaches, wider choices.
Do you really think it was any different in the Four Points with the
different ethnic groups fighting it out than today. Today those same groups
are the "we" but back only a couple of generations ago they were the "them"
> Also, we have a much larger and more powerful class of
> experts, administrators, judges, bureaucrats etc. ready to step in and
> say "Well we have Muslims and Buddhists and Voodooists as well as
> Christians and a few Jews here. That means that if we let any sort of
> reference to religion or any particular moral tradition into public
> life that will be unjust and cause disputes. So we'll insist on total
> public godlessness and we'll insist on basing the moral aspects of
> the law on the idea of the individual who is subject to no moral
> tradition at all but just does what he feels like doing within limits
> of public order that we will set because we're experts.
You really need to study history more. Those very problems have existed
since our government was formed. All Catholics should be aware that our
faith was not accepted and only the law protected our rights of faith. We
should be first to offer the same protection to others, no matter what
faith. We managed to address the problems of different faiths in one
country for a good number of years now. Let's not turn our back on the
world because we don't agree with their faith.
We have not needed to sink to the level you describe. In fact if we are
not able to address the issues of those faiths (which are already here BTW)
we will not be able to address the differences in the well established
faiths that are here now.
> So if you
> want to have restrictions on abortion or don't want mandatory
> training for schoolchildren in gay safe sex techniques too bad.
> You're just trying to enforce your particular values on a
> multicultural society so go away." That's actually pretty much what's
> happening now.
So we are back to the old fear them because they are different argument?
Can't you see what you are saying? Do you really think that is what God
wants us to do?
It may be off subject, but it appears you are suggesting that it is good
to use civil authorities to enforce OUR moral beliefs on others. That was
done before and please consider what a terrible thing it was for our beloved
Church.
Are you saying that you believe that we should go back to serration?
Are you saying you truly believe things would have been better for anyone
that way? Are you old enough to have any idea of what it was like back
then?
> I should add: if you care about the well being of African Americans
> and other people who often have trouble making a go of it and often
> rely on jobs that are not so high on the ladder, you might hesitate
> before you import tens of millions of competitors for those same jobs.
Do you believe God would have used that argument?
Jim Kalb
jm> However I don't object to ALL CAPS used selectively to point out
jm> something special about a specific word or phrase.
>> Do you think there's anything wrong in principle with
>> distinguishing us from them, and on the whole looking after our
>> interests more than theirs?
jm> Define "ours" and "theirs"
It varies by context. Once out of toddlerhood all normal human beings
are able to use the words correctly and without difficulty. So far as I
know they exist in all languages. Why do you think they are problematic?
It seems to me impossible for human beings to run their affairs without
associating and acting in groups that are larger than individuals but
smaller than the whole of humanity. In order to deal with that situation
the words "ours" and "theirs" are necessary.
jm> So are you saying that it is NOT our responsibility for what
jm> may happened to people out side the United States? Is that what
jm> you believe God has tried to teach us?
Of course not, any more than I believe that if you have a house you have
no responsibility for people who don't live in that house. The
institution of private property is legitimate for all that.
jm> Perhaps you have missed at least one alternative: Allow
jm> individuals to freely make the choice of where they which to live
jm> and under what government they wish to live under.
Yes, the issue is whether open borders would mean a better world. Also,
since the primary responsibility of a government is to its own people,
whether it would be good for the people of a country.
jm> Could be, but in my experience the reasons real people tell me
jm> they don't want "them" in the US are as above. I have yet to hear
jm> someone say that those Mexican workers should be sent back to
jm> Mexico because they would be better there. It is because they are
jm> not us and they don't belong here. Do you really believe
jm> otherwise?
And the reason people say Joe down the street can't use their car any
time he wants is that it's their car. That doesn't mean the institution
of private property is a matter of simple self-centered grabbiness.
jm> Heck, I don't need a group to be immigrants to not trust them.
jm> I don't t trust the other political party. Frankly I trust many of
jm> the immigrant groups far more than I trust many "American" groups.
jm> However does that really matter?
jm> We don't need immigrants to have difficulty finding political
jm> consensus.
Sure. Social trust is hard to maintain. That's the point. It doesn't
exist at all times and places so you have to think about how it can be
maintained. Hard though it is it's far harder when backgrounds are
radically different and there's no common history.
jm> I find diversity means more
jm> ideas, good ones, fresh approaches, wider choices.
Some diversity of some kinds in some situations means that. For things
to work you also need coherence.
jm> Do you really think it was any different in the Four Points
jm> with the different ethnic groups fighting it out than today. Today
jm> those same groups are the "we" but back only a couple of
jm> generations ago they were the "them"
No doubt different in some respects, similar in others. Assuming they
are the same, open borders seems to mean Four Points universalized and
made a permanent condition. What's so great about that?
Looking over your post, it seems that a couple of exchanges has brought
no increase in mutual understanding. It makes sense to drop it. Thanks
for commenting. It's always helpful to understand how things seem to
people.
--
Jim Kalb
Joseph Meehan
> "jm" == Joseph Meehan <sligojo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> jm> However I don't object to ALL CAPS used selectively to point out
> jm> something special about a specific word or phrase.
>
> >> Do you think there's anything wrong in principle with
> >> distinguishing us from them, and on the whole looking after our
> >> interests more than theirs?
>
> jm> Define "ours" and "theirs"
>
> It varies by context.
In the context you are using them in the paragraph above.
..
>
>
> jm> Perhaps you have missed at least one alternative: Allow
> jm> individuals to freely make the choice of where they which to live
> jm> and under what government they wish to live under.
>
> Yes, the issue is whether open borders would mean a better world.
> Also, since the primary responsibility of a government is to its own
> people,
You state that as a given. I don't accept it as a given. I would
accept that it is usually practiced that way, but why does it have to be
that way and should it be that way?
..
>
> jm> Could be, but in my experience the reasons real people tell
> me jm> they don't want "them" in the US are as above. I have yet to
> hear jm> someone say that those Mexican workers should be sent back
> to jm> Mexico because they would be better there. It is because they
> are jm> not us and they don't belong here. Do you really believe
> jm> otherwise?
>
> And the reason people say Joe down the street can't use their car any
> time he wants is that it's their car. That doesn't mean the
> institution of private property is a matter of simple self-centered
> grabbiness.
I tend to consider private property rights as a different issue than the
right to live in a country, which is more of a public right. I don't think
it is equivalent enough to be a good example for the case at hand.
>
> jm> Heck, I don't need a group to be immigrants to not trust
> them. jm> I don't t trust the other political party. Frankly I trust
> many of jm> the immigrant groups far more than I trust many
> "American" groups. jm> However does that really matter?
>
> jm> We don't need immigrants to have difficulty finding political
> jm> consensus.
>
> Sure. Social trust is hard to maintain. That's the point. It doesn't
> exist at all times and places so you have to think about how it can be
> maintained. Hard though it is it's far harder when backgrounds are
> radically different and there's no common history.
So do you now agree that the question of social trust is a sort of red
herring in the discussion of this issue?
>
> jm> I find diversity means more
> jm> ideas, good ones, fresh approaches, wider choices.
>
> Some diversity of some kinds in some situations means that. For things
> to work you also need coherence.
Good, so you agree that that the argument that they are not like is is
not a very good argument for restricting immigration?
>
> jm> Do you really think it was any different in the Four Points
> jm> with the different ethnic groups fighting it out than today.
> Today jm> those same groups are the "we" but back only a couple of
> jm> generations ago they were the "them"
>
> No doubt different in some respects, similar in others. Assuming they
> are the same, open borders seems to mean Four Points universalized and
> made a permanent condition. What's so great about that?
Not much. What was your argument for restricting immigration again?
>
> Looking over your post, it seems that a couple of exchanges has
> brought no increase in mutual understanding. It makes sense to drop
> it. Thanks for commenting. It's always helpful to understand how
> things seem to people.
On the contrary. I believe it has lead to some additional
understanding. At least I believe I have learned from it.
While it may not appear so from my responses, I have seen some good
points that you have made on the subject I had not thought of. I only hope
I may have offered some ideas that you may not have thought of.
It is the natures of exchanges of ideas when they start with a different
opinion that they will focus on the differences, and even as some
differences are resolved, there will still remain the differences. Little
will or need be said of those differences resolved. I hope you understand
my comment and understand that I do respect your opinions, even those I do
not share. I appreciate the fact that you have stuck to the subject and to
factual comments rather than stating opinions as facts that must be
accepted.
Thank you for your comments.
Jim Kalb
>> >> Do you think there's anything wrong in principle with >>
>> distinguishing us from them, and on the whole looking after our >>
>> interests more than theirs?
>>
jm> Define "ours" and "theirs"
>> It varies by context.
jm> In the context you are using them in the paragraph above. ..
I was using the words abstractly:
"Our" = pertaining to the group, of whom I am a member, whose actions
are in question.
"Their" = pertaining to other groups and their members.
>> Also, since the primary responsibility of a government is to its
>> own people,
jm> You state that as a given. I don't accept it as a given. I
jm> would accept that it is usually practiced that way, but why does
jm> it have to be that way and should it be that way?
This is an interesting question because it is so basic. The issue seems
to be whether we should recognize and accept the division of humanity
into a variety of groups of various sorts, each of which looks after its
own concerns and interests more than those of others. I say yes. Some
considerations:
1. What's the general principle that says we shouldn't? Would that
principle apply to family life, so that the father of a family should
show no more concern and responsibility for his own wife and children
than for anyone else? To economic life, so that the management of a
company should show no more concern and responsibility for its own
shareholders, employees and customers than for anyone else?
2. The reasons pursuit of group interest is legitimate include the
following:
a. Knowledge. The world is extremely complex. I don't know much about
your problems, how they came about, or how they can be solved. I can
know much more about my problems and the problems of people with whom I
have long-term cooperative relationships. Therefore it makes much more
sense to take them as my special concern.
b. Motivation. People are motivated more to solve their own problems and
those of people to whom they have a continuing connection that allows
common understandings and habits of reciprocity to grow up than those of
people to whom they have no connection except common humanity. Social
organization has to accept strong universal human tendencies or it won't
work, which would be a bad thing.
c. Organization. Simply wanting some good thing to come about doesn't do
anything. Normally, some definite organization is needed that people are
attached to and the goals of which they view as their own. It's a lot
easier for that sort of thing to grow up and establish itself locally
than universally. One of the ways institutions capable of acting and
doing things grow up is by "give a little get a little" -- you stand by
it and it stands by you and yours. If that's not true of the
organization then people mostly won't have much loyalty to it and it
won't go anywhere. That won't be true though unless the organization is
more concerned with the interests of its members than those of other
people.
jm> I tend to consider private property rights as a different
jm> issue than the right to live in a country, which is more of a
jm> public right. I don't think it is equivalent enough to be a good
jm> example for the case at hand.
Private property rights are the subject matter of most law. Law is
public and not private. For that matter, what's private about Microsoft,
which is purely a matter of private property rights?
I think private property rights are an excellent example. The world is
more complex than you think. In particular, public and private have
infinite gradations. There's me in my room (private), universal humanity
(public), and a zillion things between (family, networks of friendship
and relation, business enterprises, public institutions, cultural
constellations, nations, civilizational groupings, etc., etc., etc.)
>> Sure. Social trust is hard to maintain. That's the point. It
>> doesn't exist at all times and places so you have to think about
>> how it can be maintained. Hard though it is it's far harder when
>> backgrounds are radically different and there's no common history.
jm> So do you now agree that the question of social trust is a
jm> sort of red herring in the discussion of this issue?
I have no idea why you think that.
jm> I find diversity means more ideas, good ones, fresh approaches,
jm> wider choices.
>> Some diversity of some kinds in some situations means that. For
>> things to work you also need coherence.
jm> Good, so you agree that that the argument that they are not
jm> like is is not a very good argument for restricting immigration?
I don't understand your point.
I should add: "diversity" doesn't just mean "immigration." People have
different family, regional, educational, class etc. backgrounds. They
have different abilities and native etc. tendencies. Those differences
mean different perspectives that are often quite productive. I doubt
that immigration at least on any large scale really adds to that. Europe
for example was much more creative culturally and no doubt in other
respects pre-60s when there really hadn't been that much immigration
there since the 800s. And I don't see how mass immigration has helped
American creativity. On the whole it seems to suppress thought and
discussion. To the extent it helps a little seems to go a long way.
jm> What was your argument for restricting immigration
jm> again?
If you're interested you can reread my posts.
jm> On the contrary. I believe it has lead to some additional
jm> understanding. At least I believe I have learned from it.
I think it's unlikely we'll have a coherent overall discussion and I
won't try to keep one going. I've commented though on a couple of things
on which I wanted to write something. If anything there is of any
interest to you that's all to the good.
--
Jim Kalb
Joseph Meehan
>..
You make some very interesting and apparently well thought out points.
However you really did answer my question early on: " looks after its own
concerns and interests more than those of others." With the clarification
of the word "more" I would tend to agree with you. Of course the devil is
in the details, but it is always good to get the basics defined and
understood. :-)
...
...
>
> jm> On the contrary. I believe it has lead to some additional
> jm> understanding. At least I believe I have learned from it.
>
> I think it's unlikely we'll have a coherent overall discussion and I
> won't try to keep one going. I've commented though on a couple of
> things on which I wanted to write something. If anything there is of
> any interest to you that's all to the good.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
Joseph Meehan
You might find this link interesting. It is a newspaper report (from
the Irish Independent) on immigration. The perspective is a little
different.
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1588786&issue_id=13860 Note: the link is likely to be active for less than 24 hours.--Joseph MeehanDia duit
Mike E.
anti-immigration laws, is the one that makes it a felony to help an
undocumented immigrant. That would make the hispanic minister at my local
parish a felon-for living the Gospel message to do for the least of God's
children. It's morally reprehensible to even consider this.
Also, why in all the talk about illegal immigration is there no talk of how
the businesses that use undocumented as employees implicitly aggravate the
situation? The local meat packing plant knowingly hires undocumented
immigrants and then uses that to keep their pay below a living wage. If
we're going to talk about this issue, lets talk about the whole dirty mess.
Don't blame everything on the immigrants.
A country does have a right to regulate immigration, but it needs to make
sure that the way they do that is fair. When you have a system that
knowingly seperates families and a system that encourages people to cross at
places in the desert that kill people at an alarming rate, that system is
inherently unfair and unjust.
Peace-Mike
Mike E.
Mike E.
anti-immigration laws, is the one that makes it a felony to help an
undocumented immigrant. That would make the hispanic minister at my local
parish a felon-for living the Gospel message to do for the least of God's
children. It's morally reprehensible to even consider this.
Also, why in all the talk about illegal immigration is there no talk of how
the businesses that use undocumented as employees implicitly aggravate the
situation. The local meat packing plant knowingly hires undocumented
immigrants and then uses that to keep their pay below a living wage. If
we're going to talk about this issue, lets talk about the whole dirty mess.
DOn't blame everything on the immigrants.
Mike E.
anti-immigration laws, is the one that makes it a felony to help an
undocumented immigrant. That would make the hispanic minister at my local
parish a felon-for living the Gospel message to do for the least of God's
children. It's morally reprehensible to even consider this.
Also, why in all the talk about illegal immigration is there no talk of how
the businesses that use undocumented as employees implicitly aggravate the
situation? The local meat packing plant knowingly hires undocumented
immigrants and then uses that to keep their pay below a living wage. If
we're going to talk about this issue, lets talk about the whole dirty mess.
Don't blame everything on the immigrants.
Mike E.
Mike E.
Mike E.
Mike E.
Mike E.
Mike E.
Mike E.
Mike E.
Mike E.
Mike E.
Mike E.
Mike
>
>
>
Andrew
> Sorry about the multiple postings. Had problems with Outlook.
> Mike
I agree with the points you made and am alarmed at the shortsighted outlook
of some on this issue.
The great majority of these undocumented workers are humble, hard working,
law abiding people. The agricultural industry and those who depend on it are
dependent upon them. They work in the fields all day doing the grueling work
that few Americans would do, or would even be able to do. If they are perse-
cuted or kept in Mexico, there would be trauma in the industry causing short-
ages and much higher food prices.
If anyone wants to see the horrendous effects that misguided agricultural pol-
icies may bring, you may look to the country of Zimbabwe, which used to be
the bread basket of Africa, but now...because of insane policies and laws, is
experiencing severe food shortages and an annual inflation rate of near 1,000
percent.
We live in a world where strange things may happen and where bad laws may
cause much human suffering.
Andrew