Imigration

[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?