This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Thursday, July 09, 2020
How do we decide who comes to America?
When we consider who can enter our country, should we consider the happiness of our citizens primarily, or should the happiness of potential immigrants also be considered?
People are allowed to immigrate, or barred from immigrating, based on law. The law has been established over a long history for many reasons.
Legal immigration requires filling out a great many forms, submitted to the federal government. Those forms are reviewed and accepted or rejected based on a variety of criteria. There will almost certainly be at least one interview required to complete the process.
Nobody will ask the applicant if he or she is "happy" to apply, nor is the issue of "happiness" of the interviewer or the US citizenry at large ever raised.
I pray for the Happy Day To Come when there are no more boundaries, no more walls, and everyone is a citizen of the planet (or perhaps even the Solar System).
At my age, I probably won't live to see it, but be assured that day will come, and everyone will be better off for it.
The original question was, "How do we decide who comes to America?." The answer is a politically determined process that determines the parameters. The assumptions in the question are 1) There is a distinction in the place "America" defined by borders and who is in and who is out. 2) There is a legitimate process for the "coming". 3) There is someone deciding who is coming and who is not. The basis for the decision must be more than "happiness". If it is the only basis, then it would have to be based on the happiness of the citizens, not on the happiness of the applicants.
The Catholic Church has always taught nations are a natural formation of human society. If someone tells you different, they aren't representing Catholic doctrine.
Oh, heck. I'm not in favor of doing away with cultures. (Where then would I go for my Tibetan cuisine?) It's countries that I believe have been around way past their sell-by date. I am for total freedom of movement. If I want to move to Tajikistan (and can afford to), then I ought to be able to, no questions asked. If someone from Bolivia wants to move here (and he can afford to), he ought to be able to.
More importantly, if a Jew wants to live in the West Bank, he should have complete freedom to do so. And if a Palestinian wants to live in Tel Aviv, the same freedom should apply.
Starhopper, " I pray for the Happy Day To Come when there are no more boundaries"
Why, do you suppose god will change his mind if you beg him enough? What, god was going to just keep all those boundaries but then he heard you begging him to get rid of them so, right, god just might change his mind, work some miracles, and poof, away go the boundaries.
The inanity of prayer is a continual source of wonderment for me, how otherwise intelligent people could spend their energies doing something so absurd as intercessory prayer.
You don't believe in the efficacy of intercessory prayer because, as an atheist, you've never tried it. I will tell you straightforwardly, it works.
We don't "change God's mind" when we pray. God, being outside of time, has already taken our prayers into account as part of His decision making process (inadequate human language here).
The reason your language is inadequate is that you are trying to express ideas that are irrational and only partially considered.
Your utterances are a collection of half baked confused broken phrases.
For example, in your statement you have unwittingly asserted that both you and god have no free will.
You have further asserted that god is "outside of time" (whatever that nonsensical phrase is supposed to mean) yet is acting in our time, a clear self contradiction.
There are rational explanations, however, for your perception that "it works".
Yes, I do not doubt that you have the feeling that intercessory prayer does work. The mechanisms are confirmation bias, and the benefits of meditative contemplation applied to your own actions.
Thanks, BM, that is what I thought. Coincidentally, just recently the sociologist and onetime man of the left Frank Furedi has a book out on Boundaries. Interview with him here.
I hadn't thought about all the various *borders* that are under attack today. It was a very interesting interview. Looks like his book comes out tomorrow. I just may have to order it.
Speaking ONLY about territorial boundaries (and not about all the other types of borders that were discussed), I could not disagree more with the link. It is long past time that national boundaries were erased from the face of the Earth (and I hope we don't bring them along with us as we colonize the Solar System). We'd all be better off, were that to happen.
Here and here is a recent 2-part essay from Ferudi tracing the New Hegemony resulting from the recent culture war.
I found this part very interesting from the second part: Campus initiatives designed to raise awareness provide participants with virtues and moral qualities that distinguish them from the supposedly ‘unaware’ and unenlightened. The exhortation to ‘acknowledge white privilege’ is a very clear model of awareness-raising. Those who confess and acknowledge their guilt are able to distinguish themselves from the supposedly narrow-minded, prejudiced people who have not done likewise. The possession of awareness is therefore a marker of one’s superior status. And its absence marks one out as inferior. That is why the refusal to abide by the exhortation to ‘be aware’ invites moral condemnation.
Far from presenting the landscape of available ideas in the public sphere, this sounds like mind control programming. It explains a lot for me.
What surprises Ferudi is the absence of any resistance.
Interesting. For your comment to make any sense at all, you ought to be advocating that every American of European, African, or Asian ancestry ought to leave.
If you do not think that this should happen... well then, you're just trolling us.
Yes, I've been reading spiked for a while now. Its writers tend to have left-of-centre if not Marxist backgrounds (like Frank Furedi), but they will have no truck with the contemporary woke ideology that has infiltrated the Dems and the UK Labour party. I can't see Brendan O'Neill 'taking the knee', unlike the new Labour leader Keir Starmer. Of late they have been very strong on free speech and debate (seen as the way to find good solutions to problems) and Brexit (a democratic majority, especially in the working-class, was in favour).
Also interesting on contemporary ideology is the political philosopher John Gray. Some essays of his here.
Hal, What is Loofbourow's piece an analysis of and why is it better in your view? The Furedi essay is dated January 2007. Loofbourow's is about life on Twitter in 2020. Twitter had barely begun in 2007. Can both pieces be about the same phenomenon? Her artwork is much better I'll admit.
Fair enough, Hal. Loofbourow does indeed say But what I think is largely responsible for this phenomenon they’re observing—without understanding—is Twitter. And the internet at large. Furedi mentions 'internet' or 'net' twice in about 4000 words. He doesn't mention 'twitter'. Loofbourow mentions 'twitter' or 'internet' eighteen times in 2200 words. That ought to suggest to someone who has read neither essay that they are on different subjects. And indeed they are. Loofbourow describes the cesspool that social media internet sites can become. Furedi, writing before the rise of social media, looks at a change in the wider linguistic culture. We might discuss Loofbourow's narrower focus later. But what makes Loofbourow's a 'better analysis', apart from not being written by an apparent snowflake?
31 comments:
"Happiness" is not the issue.
People are allowed to immigrate, or barred from immigrating, based on law. The law has been established over a long history for many reasons.
Legal immigration requires filling out a great many forms, submitted to the federal government. Those forms are reviewed and accepted or rejected based on a variety of criteria. There will almost certainly be at least one interview required to complete the process.
Nobody will ask the applicant if he or she is "happy" to apply, nor is the issue of "happiness" of the interviewer or the US citizenry at large ever raised.
I pray for the Happy Day To Come when there are no more boundaries, no more walls, and everyone is a citizen of the planet (or perhaps even the Solar System).
At my age, I probably won't live to see it, but be assured that day will come, and everyone will be better off for it.
I hear "Imagine" playing in the background.
The original question was, "How do we decide who comes to America?." The answer is a politically determined process that determines the parameters. The assumptions in the question are 1) There is a distinction in the place "America" defined by borders and who is in and who is out. 2) There is a legitimate process for the "coming". 3) There is someone deciding who is coming and who is not. The basis for the decision must be more than "happiness". If it is the only basis, then it would have to be based on the happiness of the citizens, not on the happiness of the applicants.
"I hear "Imagine" playing in the background."
Kindly tell me what part of my aspirations are undesirable.
Bob, I'd have thought that the fallen nature of man makes boundaries essential.
"Bob, I'd have thought that the fallen nature of man makes boundaries essential."
Why? How does that follow? It seems to me that boundaries are a result of our fallen nature, not a cure for it.
Yes, they are a result. My understanding of Catholic doctrine is that there is no earthly cure for the condition.
Don't worry David.
The Catholic Church has always taught nations are a natural formation of human society. If someone tells you different, they aren't representing Catholic doctrine.
Oh, heck. I'm not in favor of doing away with cultures. (Where then would I go for my Tibetan cuisine?) It's countries that I believe have been around way past their sell-by date. I am for total freedom of movement. If I want to move to Tajikistan (and can afford to), then I ought to be able to, no questions asked. If someone from Bolivia wants to move here (and he can afford to), he ought to be able to.
More importantly, if a Jew wants to live in the West Bank, he should have complete freedom to do so. And if a Palestinian wants to live in Tel Aviv, the same freedom should apply.
Starhopper,
" I pray for the Happy Day To Come when there are no more boundaries"
Why, do you suppose god will change his mind if you beg him enough? What, god was going to just keep all those boundaries but then he heard you begging him to get rid of them so, right, god just might change his mind, work some miracles, and poof, away go the boundaries.
The inanity of prayer is a continual source of wonderment for me, how otherwise intelligent people could spend their energies doing something so absurd as intercessory prayer.
You don't believe in the efficacy of intercessory prayer because, as an atheist, you've never tried it. I will tell you straightforwardly, it works.
We don't "change God's mind" when we pray. God, being outside of time, has already taken our prayers into account as part of His decision making process (inadequate human language here).
The reason your language is inadequate is that you are trying to express ideas that are irrational and only partially considered.
Your utterances are a collection of half baked confused broken phrases.
For example, in your statement you have unwittingly asserted that both you and god have no free will.
You have further asserted that god is "outside of time" (whatever that nonsensical phrase is supposed to mean) yet is acting in our time, a clear self contradiction.
There are rational explanations, however, for your perception that "it works".
Yes, I do not doubt that you have the feeling that intercessory prayer does work. The mechanisms are confirmation bias, and the benefits of meditative contemplation applied to your own actions.
Thanks, BM, that is what I thought. Coincidentally, just recently the sociologist and onetime man of the left Frank Furedi has a book out on Boundaries. Interview with him here.
Thanks for the link David.
I hadn't thought about all the various *borders* that are under attack today. It was a very interesting interview. Looks like his book comes out tomorrow. I just may have to order it.
Speaking ONLY about territorial boundaries (and not about all the other types of borders that were discussed), I could not disagree more with the link. It is long past time that national boundaries were erased from the face of the Earth (and I hope we don't bring them along with us as we colonize the Solar System). We'd all be better off, were that to happen.
David,
Here and here is a recent 2-part essay from Ferudi tracing the New Hegemony resulting from the recent culture war.
I found this part very interesting from the second part:
Campus initiatives designed to raise awareness provide participants with virtues and moral qualities that distinguish them from the supposedly ‘unaware’ and unenlightened. The exhortation to ‘acknowledge white privilege’ is a very clear model of awareness-raising. Those who confess and acknowledge their guilt are able to distinguish themselves from the supposedly narrow-minded, prejudiced people who have not done likewise. The possession of awareness is therefore a marker of one’s superior status. And its absence marks one out as inferior. That is why the refusal to abide by the exhortation to ‘be aware’ invites moral condemnation.
Far from presenting the landscape of available ideas in the public sphere, this sounds like mind control programming. It explains a lot for me.
What surprises Ferudi is the absence of any resistance.
We'd all be better off, were that to happen.
I think Native Americans would like a mulligan.
Interesting. For your comment to make any sense at all, you ought to be advocating that every American of European, African, or Asian ancestry ought to leave.
If you do not think that this should happen... well then, you're just trolling us.
I'm not advocating anything other than to give you a historical example of why it may not be a good idea for a nation to allow unlimited immigration.
Just because I (and the Catholic Church) disagree with you doesn't mean I'm trolling.
Hello BM,
Yes, I've been reading spiked for a while now. Its writers tend to have left-of-centre if not Marxist backgrounds (like Frank Furedi), but they will have no truck with the contemporary woke ideology that has infiltrated the Dems and the UK Labour party. I can't see Brendan O'Neill 'taking the knee', unlike the new Labour leader Keir Starmer. Of late they have been very strong on free speech and debate (seen as the way to find good solutions to problems) and Brexit (a democratic majority, especially in the working-class, was in favour).
Also interesting on contemporary ideology is the political philosopher John Gray. Some essays of his here.
David,
Thanks for the link to John Gray's essays too. I've already read a couple of them. Both Furedi and Gray are a breath of fresh air.
I think some of the older contributors here just don't get what's going on. They think the protests and riots are about just a couple specific things.
Gray's essay here seems pretty clear-eyed to me. There is no plan, just the "virtuous" tearing it all down.
Hal, What is Loofbourow's piece an analysis of and why is it better in your view? The Furedi essay is dated January 2007. Loofbourow's is about life on Twitter in 2020. Twitter had barely begun in 2007. Can both pieces be about the same phenomenon? Her artwork is much better I'll admit.
You're welcome BM. Glad you can breathe!
Glad you can breathe!
Ha!
Fair enough, Hal. Loofbourow does indeed say But what I think is largely responsible for this phenomenon they’re observing—without understanding—is Twitter. And the internet at large. Furedi mentions 'internet' or 'net' twice in about 4000 words. He doesn't mention 'twitter'. Loofbourow mentions 'twitter' or 'internet' eighteen times in 2200 words. That ought to suggest to someone who has read neither essay that they are on different subjects. And indeed they are. Loofbourow describes the cesspool that social media internet sites can become. Furedi, writing before the rise of social media, looks at a change in the wider linguistic culture. We might discuss Loofbourow's narrower focus later. But what makes Loofbourow's a 'better analysis', apart from not being written by an apparent snowflake?
Totally off topic, but I've just discovered the best ever website about theology (from an Anglican point of view).
Check it out. I guarantee you'll be glad you did!
Since we are off topic. Flintstones win a Grammy
Sorry. That was the wrong song by the same artist. Here is the Grammy winner.
Both are pretty good aren't they?
Thanks Hal. Those were good too.
I have heard of Gaelyn before, but hadn't heard her do those 2 songs.
Post a Comment