Imigration

[Jennifer Williams]

We accept responsibility for those who are us. Family, tribe (city), clan (state), country, in that order. But in this case that means legal citizens, regardless of race or country of origin. That includes, among others, legal Latinos.

This, I believe, is the core of where we differ.

We all are "us". There is no "they." Family? The human race. Anyone and everyone. What if my sister tomorrow married a guy from Mexico? Instant family. City? People move in/out of my city, my state, and my country every day, and that does not change their level of importance to me. Yes, of course I love my family. I just remind myself that any person I speak to is part of someone's family, and so therefore, equally as important as mine.

No, we are not responsible for each other. Or not every other person. We accept responsibility for some, and those we help as much as we can. But I, for one, will not accept responsibility for every hungry person in the world.

I have no logical argument for this. It just makes me plain sad. You have a right to feel differently than me. But if I suddenly found myself with enough food for the whole world and some way to distribute it, I would. I feel responsible for my fellow human beings everywhere, because what separates me from them? The pure random chance of where I was born, and nothing else. I could easily have been them; I could still easily become them. At any time I could become sick, or poor, or wronged, or alone. How dare I think myself more important or better than anyone else, simply because I was randomly dealt a better hand of cards than they were?

And yes, we are responsible for each other, because that is the root of civilization. Evolutionary-wise, does it make sense for the strong to protect the weak? No. In the animal world, they let the weak die, because they are a burden. Humans are different. We choose to bear the burden of the weak, because we believe in something better than that. We believe in civilization, in that even the weak have value, simply because they are one of us.

And we are all "one of us."

I have no problem with the idea of changing the law, even to the point of allowing more immigrants, legally, into the country. But until those laws are changed, I think we have to enforce the laws as they exist today. If you believe the laws are bad you fight them in the courts, or in the Congress. You don't simply ignore them.

On this, I would have to agree with, except where following the law would violate a person's human rights. Human rights always apply first, and our country believes that, which is why places like emergency rooms and food pantries aren't allowed to report illegal immigrants. Because getting them the food and medicine to carry on as living, healthy human beings is more important than the laws. Our own government knows this; which is why they are so hesitant to enforce inhumane acts, like deportation (also because it's a pointless waste of resources when the deported person is going to do everything they can to come right back, anyway).

[Thorne]

I just remind myself that any person I speak to is part of someone's family, and so therefore, equally as important as mine.

All well and good, but if you had to choose between helping your sister and helping a stranger (which means that you cannot help both) which would you help?

I have no logical argument for this. It just makes me plain sad. You have a right to feel differently than me. But if I suddenly found myself with enough food for the whole world and some way to distribute it, I would.

As would I! I'm not saying I'm cruel, or intolerant, or even against helping. I'm only saying that there are priorities. If I had the means to feed the world, believe me, I'd jump at the chance. Not because I felt responsible, but because it would be the right thing to do!

How dare I think myself more important or better than anyone else, simply because I was randomly dealt a better hand of cards than they were?

I don't consider myself better than anyone else. LOL! Far from it!
But I am more important than those others, to my family and to myself. The only ones more important to me than myself would be my wife and my children, probably in that order. But my own well being ranks just below them. The rest of the world ranks in decreasing order below that.

Evolutionary-wise, does it make sense for the strong to protect the weak?

Yes, it does. Especially if the weak has abilities or talents which can benefit the group. Human males are generally physically stronger than females, so they protect them for the benefit of the tribe! The man who can make strong spears, even though he only has one good leg, benefits the tribe and must be protected.

Humans are different. We choose to bear the burden of the weak, because we believe in something better than that. We believe in civilization, in that even the weak have value, simply because they are one of us.

I've never claimed differently. But there are priorities. Would I run into a burning building to save a 90 year old man? Probably not. To save a child? I sure as hell hope so! (Until the moment happens no one can know, but I don't think I could live with myself if I did nothing.)

And we are all "one of us."

This is the fundamental difference between us, I think. I don't feel the same way. Perhaps its a flaw in my makeup, but I don't think of it as such.

which is why places like emergency rooms and food pantries aren't allowed to report illegal immigrants. Because getting them the food and medicine to carry on as living, healthy human beings is more important than the laws.

I would agree as to providing treatment and giving them food. But reporting them afterward is not preventing them from doing that.

Our own government knows this; which is why they are so hesitant to enforce inhumane acts, like deportation

Deportation is not inhumane, except in circumstances where the person would face imminent danger or death if returned.

[MMI]

All well and good, but if you had to choose between helping your sister and helping a stranger (which means that you cannot help both) which would you help?

I think it is probably a mistake to bring this discussion down to "what-ifs" at this level. We are not talking about individuals giving or withholding specific assistance to/from other particular individuals, we are talking about whether a society should give or withhold aid to/from members of a group of people identifiable only by the fact that they do not "belong".

Being human, in an "either/or" situation, I would choose my sister, of course, but if it were a choice between allocating some small part of my taxes to help desparate "outsiders" or to direct that money to some other civic purpose instead, I would vote to give aid every time.

As would I! I'm not saying I'm cruel, or intolerant, or even against helping. I'm only saying that there are priorities. If I had the means to feed the world, believe me, I'd jump at the chance. Not because I felt responsible, but because it would be the right thing to do!

I have to say you do sometimes give the impression of all those bad things, but, again, I think this is down to the fact that you are dealing with a "macro" problem on a "micro" level. But then you say you would willingly feed the world if you could, because it would be the right thing to do.

That, Thorne, is so true and shows a spark of humanity through the cold, emotionless facade you like to present to us all.

I don't consider myself better than anyone else. LOL! Far from it!
But I am more important than those others, to my family and to myself. The only ones more important to me than myself would be my wife and my children, probably in that order. But my own well being ranks just below them. The rest of the world ranks in decreasing order below that.

You family is lucky to have someone to support them. How many illegal aliens are so fortunate? Should they be deprived of the support society can easily afford because they are in a wretched situation already?

Yes, it does. Especially if the weak has abilities or talents which can benefit the group. Human males are generally physically stronger than females, so they protect them for the benefit of the tribe! The man who can make strong spears, even though he only has one good leg, benefits the tribe and must be protected.

I suggest that what you are describing is not evolution (survival of the fittest) but the development of a sophisticated social structure, and, perhaps, an economy.

I've never claimed differently. But there are priorities. Would I run into a burning building to save a 90 year old man? Probably not. To save a child? I sure as hell hope so! (Until the moment happens no one can know, but I don't think I could live with myself if I did nothing.)

What makes a child better than an old man? Would you actually pass a frail and feeble old man to save a healthy and agile child?

How are we supposed to extend this analogy to young (mostly) illegal immigrants and the (generally) older US citizenry?

This is the fundamental difference between us, I think. I don't feel the same way. Perhaps its a flaw in my makeup, but I don't think of it as such.

I don't think it's an inate flaw; I believe it to be a conscious choice.

I would agree as to providing treatment and giving them food. But reporting them afterward is not preventing them from doing that.

Can you not see that, if I as an illegal alien, know I am going to be deported once I have been fed and cured or delivered of my baby, I would rather starve, suffer (and infect), and risk my new baby's very life than reveal myself to the hospital?

Deportation is not inhumane, except in circumstances where the person would face imminent danger or death if returned.

Forget "inhumane" - we are talking about economic migrants, mostly. What about simple human sympathy?

[Thorne]

but if it were a choice between allocating some small part of my taxes to help desparate "outsiders" or to direct that money to some other civic purpose instead, I would vote to give aid every time.

So you would choose desperate outsiders over desperate insiders? This is totally beyond my comprehension.

But then you say you would willingly feed the world if you could, because it would be the right thing to do.

That, Thorne, is so true and shows a spark of humanity through the cold, emotionless facade you like to present to us all.

Damn! And I thought I hid it so well!

You family is lucky to have someone to support them. How many illegal aliens are so fortunate? Should they be deprived of the support society can easily afford because they are in a wretched situation already?

Easily afford? This country is in debt up to our eyeballs, our future mortgaged away to line the pockets of corrupt politicians. The last thing we can afford is to keep throwing money into endless pool of illegals!

I suggest that what you are describing is not evolution (survival of the fittest) but the development of a sophisticated social structure, and, perhaps, an economy.

I suggest it is both. Cooperation and compassion have been observed in other primates, and other animals as well. Sophisticated social structures had to evolve from less sophisticated ones over time. It is a matter of both biological and cultural evolution.

What makes a child better than an old man?

Aside from the fact that or biological make-up leads us to protect the children, a child has far more potential value to society than an old man who has already lived the bulk of his life.

Would you actually pass a frail and feeble old man to save a healthy and agile child?

I would, and if I were the old man I would encourage any rescuer to do the same. Despite being healthy and agile, the child is much more likely to panic and be unable to escape on his own. Ideally, of course, I would like to save both, but if forced to choose, the child would win out every time.

How are we supposed to extend this analogy to young (mostly) illegal immigrants and the (generally) older US citizenry?

The analogy breaks down because, with few exceptions, the "child" is relatively safe and demanding a glass of water while the "old man" is in need of medical care and assistance that they "child" can get elsewhere.

Can you not see that, if I as an illegal alien, know I am going to be deported once I have been fed and cured or delivered of my baby, I would rather starve, suffer (and infect), and risk my new baby's very life than reveal myself to the hospital?

If they are willing to risk their child's life rather than be sent home, do we really want to bother helping them?

Forget "inhumane" - we are talking about economic migrants, mostly. What about simple human sympathy?

I do feel sympathy. But they are illegal, and should be subject to the law. I would also feel sympathy for a mother who killed her children in a fit of depression. I would still want her locked away in prison, but I'd be sympathetic.

[Jennifer Williams]

The analogy breaks down because, with few exceptions, the "child" is relatively safe and demanding a glass of water while the "old man" is in need of medical care and assistance that they "child" can get elsewhere.

Elsewhere? Where else can they go? No job in Mexico, no money, no food. Just put yourself in their literal shoes. Your entire village is broke. You're hungry, your children are hungry, and nobody around you has a dime because nobody has a job. You've applied for visas. You've waited, say, two years, and they haven't come.

You've got enough food left for one more day. And no one around you has any, either. Without food, it's simple. You'll die. For certain.

There are jobs close by in the United States, where you can earn money to buy food. Getting there is dangerous but at least it's hopeful, you only might die during the journey, as opposed to for sure dying if you stay where you are.

Say you're talking to this person, face-to-face, on this day. What do you tell him? 1) Stay in your village and starve, or 2) .....?

You fill in the blanks, because so far nobody else has been able to come up with something better than "move to America for a better life."
This man doesn't have the luxury of waiting for a visa, he doesn't have the luxury of waiting for the next election to vote for a better president who might turn the country around in a few years.

He needs to eat tomorrow.

You tell him where he should go.

[Thorne]

Say you're talking to this person, face-to-face, on this day. What do you tell him?

He needs to eat tomorrow.

You tell him where he should go.

The first thing I'd tell him is to keep that money he was going to use to pay the coyotes to lead him across the border and use it to move his family to where the jobs are. There are jobs in Mexico, you know. He'll have to move from his village, but he was prepared to do that anyway. And if he has enough money to pay the coyotes, he has enough to buy food for his family on the journey south.

[Jennifer Williams]

The first thing I'd tell him is to keep that money he was going to use to pay the coyotes to lead him across the border and use it to move his family to where the jobs are. There are jobs in Mexico, you know.

Yes, there are. "In 2010 the average of Mexico’s three region-based minimum wages is around U.S. $4.50 per day." - US Department of State (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35749.htm)

That's $4.50 a day (Or $1642.50 for an annual salary, if you worked all 365 days in the year). That's the average. I don't know about you, but I'd be hard-pressed to support myself on $4.50 an hour. Now what if I had to support an entire family on that? Say you have a family of four. At $4.50 per day, each person gets $1.13 to live off of per day, or $410.63 per year. How much money to you need to live on each day? Could you support yourself and your family with such wages?

So the answer is no, there is not sustainable employment for the average Mexican citizen in Mexico.

He'll have to move from his village, but he was prepared to do that anyway. And if he has enough money to pay the coyotes, he has enough to buy food for his family on the journey south.

South of Mexico are Guatemala and Belize. People who live in Guatemala and Belize are running out of those countries, through Mexico, to get to America, so why would a Mexican be better off going that way?

You're hungry, you have no money (whether or not you have a job), and your children need to eat tomorrow.

[DuncanONeil]

All assumptions! The facts do not support your claims!
Unemployment in Mexico is 40% of that of the US. 4% vs 9.9%

Elsewhere? Where else can they go? No job in Mexico, no money, no food. Just put yourself in their literal shoes. Your entire village is broke. You're hungry, your children are hungry, and nobody around you has a dime because nobody has a job. You've applied for visas. You've waited, say, two years, and they haven't come.

You've got enough food left for one more day. And no one around you has any, either. Without food, it's simple. You'll die. For certain.

There are jobs close by in the United States, where you can earn money to buy food. Getting there is dangerous but at least it's hopeful, you only might die during the journey, as opposed to for sure dying if you stay where you are.

Say you're talking to this person, face-to-face, on this day. What do you tell him? 1) Stay in your village and starve, or 2) .....?

You fill in the blanks, because so far nobody else has been able to come up with something better than "move to America for a better life."
This man doesn't have the luxury of waiting for a visa, he doesn't have the luxury of waiting for the next election to vote for a better president who might turn the country around in a few years.

He needs to eat tomorrow.

You tell him where he should go.

[MMI]

So you would choose desperate outsiders over desperate insiders? This is totally beyond my comprehension.

No. I would make no distinction between them. What is beyond my comprehension is that you would, and the distinction would be based on nothing better than where a person happened to be born.

Easily afford? This country is in debt up to our eyeballs, our future mortgaged away to line the pockets of corrupt politicians. The last thing we can afford is to keep throwing money into endless pool of illegals!

Except the mortgages lined the pockets of corrupt bankers.

The very simple fact you are ignoring is, although America currently owes lots of money as a result of the Banking Crisis, it is owed lots and lots more money by other entities, and could, if it chose, repay the whole national debt tomorrow by cancelling or transferring some of the debts due to it.

Yes, America could easily afford to aid those immigrants.

Aside from the fact that or biological make-up leads us to protect the children, a child has far more potential value to society than an old man who has already lived the bulk of his life.

I am struck with the reckless ease you are prepared to dismiss the value of people on the basis of sweeping and flawed assumptions. The fact that the old man has lived the greater part of his life suggests he is of greater value to society than a child who has nothing more to give than "potential", because the old man has actual experience and wisdom to offer.

This, I now see, is how you can deny masses of people the benefits and advantages you have received, more by good fortune than effort, however you might protest at my saying that, simply because they did not have the luck to have had ancestors who did manage to enter the country and stay.

If they are willing to risk their child's life rather than be sent home, do we really want to bother helping them?

So if I am prepared to let a child die, you are too ...

I do feel sympathy. But they are illegal, and should be subject to the law. I would also feel sympathy for a mother who killed her children in a fit of depression. I would still want her locked away in prison, but I'd be sympathetic.

... but only I would go to prison. At least I'd know you felt sorry for me - but not enough to help.

[Thorne]

I'm tired of going round and round about this. We're getting nowhere, fast. You're not going to convince me that impoverishing the world to try to save the poor is the right thing to do, and I'm not going to convince you that it's not.

Maybe you're right about me. Maybe I am a selfish bastard who doesn't care what happens to the poor. It certainly doesn't concern me all that much. I'm too busy worrying about keeping myself from becoming poor. When it comes to charity I'm more concerned with myself than others.

Maybe it's because, over the years, I've come to the realization that people in general are just plain bad. There are individuals who are good and decent, sure, and I treasure these when I find them. But as a group there's just nothing to like.

So I'm going to bow out of this argument. I've pretty much said all I want to about it anyway.

[DuncanONeil]

Because you understand that giving is a personal issue and that the resources for giving are limited, this somehow makes you selfish?
Then there is the issue of how it is possible to be charitable with someone elses' money?

I'm tired of going round and round about this. We're getting nowhere, fast. You're not going to convince me that impoverishing the world to try to save the poor is the right thing to do, and I'm not going to convince you that it's not.

Maybe you're right about me. Maybe I am a selfish bastard who doesn't care what happens to the poor. It certainly doesn't concern me all that much. I'm too busy worrying about keeping myself from becoming poor. When it comes to charity I'm more concerned with myself than others.

Maybe it's because, over the years, I've come to the realization that people in general are just plain bad. There are individuals who are good and decent, sure, and I treasure these when I find them. But as a group there's just nothing to like.

So I'm going to bow out of this argument. I've pretty much said all I want to about it anyway.

[DuncanONeil]

And the "Banking Crisis" is the responsibility of Congress! Who, by the way, want another bite at that apple!

No. I would make no distinction between them. What is beyond my comprehension is that you would, and the distinction would be based on nothing better than where a person happened to be born.




Except the mortgages lined the pockets of corrupt bankers.

The very simple fact you are ignoring is, although America currently owes lots of money as a result of the Banking Crisis, it is owed lots and lots more money by other entities, and could, if it chose, repay the whole national debt tomorrow by cancelling or transferring some of the debts due to it.

Yes, America could easily afford to aid those immigrants.




I am struck with the reckless ease you are prepared to dismiss the value of people on the basis of sweeping and flawed assumptions. The fact that the old man has lived the greater part of his life suggests he is of greater value to society than a child who has nothing more to give than "potential", because the old man has actual experience and wisdom to offer.

This, I now see, is how you can deny masses of people the benefits and advantages you have received, more by good fortune than effort, however you might protest at my saying that, simply because they did not have the luck to have had ancestors who did manage to enter the country and stay.




So if I am prepared to let a child die, you are too ...



... but only I would go to prison. At least I'd know you felt sorry for me - but not enough to help.

[DuncanONeil]

Actually I think Thorne gets right to the core of the issue nearly every time. MMI and Jennifer speak of the right thing to do, from the prospective of limitless resources. We do not have limitless resources. Hell even the world does not have limitless resources.
As a result we have to pick and choose who and when to aid.
That is not cruel nor inhumane, it is a fact of life.
It is the very thing I tell every person that calls for aid to the various and sundry charitable agencies. Send a package through and we will see what we have after the necessities are covered!

I think it is probably a mistake to bring this discussion down to "what-ifs" at this level. We are not talking about individuals giving or withholding specific assistance to/from other particular individuals, we are talking about whether a society should give or withhold aid to/from members of a group of people identifiable only by the fact that they do not "belong".

Being human, in an "either/or" situation, I would choose my sister, of course, but if it were a choice between allocating some small part of my taxes to help desparate "outsiders" or to direct that money to some other civic purpose instead, I would vote to give aid every time.




I have to say you do sometimes give the impression of all those bad things, but, again, I think this is down to the fact that you are dealing with a "macro" problem on a "micro" level. But then you say you would willingly feed the world if you could, because it would be the right thing to do.

That, Thorne, is so true and shows a spark of humanity through the cold, emotionless facade you like to present to us all.



You family is lucky to have someone to support them. How many illegal aliens are so fortunate? Should they be deprived of the support society can easily afford because they are in a wretched situation already?



I suggest that what you are describing is not evolution (survival of the fittest) but the development of a sophisticated social structure, and, perhaps, an economy.




What makes a child better than an old man? Would you actually pass a frail and feeble old man to save a healthy and agile child?

How are we supposed to extend this analogy to young (mostly) illegal immigrants and the (generally) older US citizenry?



I don't think it's an inate flaw; I believe it to be a conscious choice.



Can you not see that, if I as an illegal alien, know I am going to be deported once I have been fed and cured or delivered of my baby, I would rather starve, suffer (and infect), and risk my new baby's very life than reveal myself to the hospital?



Forget "inhumane" - we are talking about economic migrants, mostly. What about simple human sympathy?