Monday, August 02, 2021

Legal immigration

 The REAL issue between me and people like Trump administration supporters is this. I think that most of who or what that tries to come over the border is benign, consisting mostly of people looking for a better life in much the way our ancestors did. Due to our prohibitive requirements for LEGAL immigration, people end up trying to come into the country illegally, and sometimes succeed and for the most part become law-abiding citizens. I have been a sub in public schools and have taught a lot of their kids. They weren't on their best behavior for me, but they are not bad kids, and they are certainly not murderers and rapists. Their undocumented parents work for a living. They should have had the opportunity to come here legally. We would need a lot less border security if we turned the ports of entry on the Southern border into little Ellis Islands instead of trying to build the Great Wall of China down there. Think about asylum seekers. They're trying to come here LEGALLY. Yeah, we would become a majority-minority country sooner, but so what? Yeah, they might need public assistance sometimes, because we let people work in America, in many cases, without paying them a living wage. This is NOT an open borders position because there still criminals, and drugs, and weapons that we need to keep out, and we would still need border security to keep those people and things out. But I think we can go a long way toward fixing illegal immigration by creating more fairness in the area of legal immigration. "Give me your tired, your poor," shouldn't just be pretty words on a statue. It's still good public policy.

78 comments:

bmiller said...

But the REAL issue between me and people like BV is this.

Then it seems to me that BV was pretty much right about your intentions. I'm pretty sure the REAL "open borders" people would want to keep out criminals, drugs and weapons (aside from the "open borders" people profitting from those things). So I see no real difference between your position and theirs. It was never about a "wall" vs a "smart wall" at all.

Moving my response here.

Victor Reppert said...

In which case his arguments against open borders are straw man arguments, because they ask how you keep weapons and criminals out of the country. Do we have moral grounds for excluding people from America other than because they are criminals, have weapons, or are bringing in drugs? If so, what are they?

bmiller said...

In which case you were not arguing in good faith about a "smart wall" and he was right.

Regarding moral grounds. Consequentialists have a non-Christian morality.

But here's Aquinas.

I answer that, Man's relations with foreigners are twofold: peaceful, and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained suitable precepts. For the Jews were offered three opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners passed through their land as travelers. Secondly, when they came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these respects the Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is written (Exodus 22:21): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger [advenam]"; and again (Exodus 22:9): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger [peregrino]." Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1). The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people. Hence it was that the Law prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews (viz., the Egyptians among whom they were born and educated, and the Idumeans, the children of Esau, Jacob's brother), that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation; whereas others (with whom their relations had been hostile, such as the Ammonites and Moabites) were never to be admitted to citizenship; while the Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity: for it is written (Exodus 17:16): "The war of the Lord shall be against Amalec from generation to generation."

bmiller said...

Bill Vallicella's argument against open borders.

Victor Reppert said...

But I oppose illegal immigration! I just want legal immigration to be more fair, just, and open.

bmiller said...

I guess if you legalize all entries then there will be no illegal immigration. That's rather libertarian for a socialist.

bmiller said...

The following are all the reasons BV gave for being against illegal immigration.
Of the 10 reasons, it seems the first 7 reasons could also pertain to legal immigration as well as illegal immigration.


National Security
Assimilation
National Identity
Comity
Economic dependency on the state
Lower wages for present low wage citizens
Population


Smuggling
Increased Crime
Disease
Environmental impact

Starhopper said...

"We would need a lot less border security if we turned the ports of entry on the Southern border into little Ellis Islands instead of trying to build the Great Wall of China down there."

Beautiful! My great grandparents came over through Ellis Island from Poland in 1913 (just missing the Great War, a.k.a., WWI). Had they not been allowed in, I would have lived through four decades of Communism, so I'm grateful every day of my life for the wide open immigration policies of the time.

We need similarly welcoming policies today.

Kevin said...

I'm grateful every day of my life for the wide open immigration policies of the time.

Unless you were from China of course.

bmiller said...

Seems there are some good reasons to restrict citizenship to the 3rd generation in some cases...eh? ;-)

Starhopper said...

"Unless you were from China of course."

Of course.

bmiller said...

BTW. Wonder why people think Russia is a bigger threat than China.

Starhopper said...

I think both countries are militarily a threat only to their immediate neighbors. Russia threatens the former Soviet republics, and China threatens India, Southeast Asia, the South China Sea, and Taiwan.

The old Soviet Union threatened the entire world militarily, but nowadays their successors are content with meddling in our elections.

Starhopper said...

And by the way, everyone ought to take at least a few minutes today to remember the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, 76 years ago on this day.

Agnus Dei, dona nobis pacem.

bmiller said...

Russia is no longer a communist country promoting world-wide communism. China is run by the Chinese Communist Party and has world-dominating ambitions

Starhopper said...

I quite agree that the Chinese leadership would like to be the dominant power in the world, but I wouldn't include them as a military threat, other than to their immediate neighbors.

bmiller said...

Seems they're militarily threatening anyone who gets in the way of them "re-uniting" with Taiwan. Including the US, Japan, Austrailia etc. Germany is even sending a warship to the South China Sea.

Starhopper said...

You appear to be agreeing with me. China is a military threat only to those in their immediate neighborhood (which includes Taiwan and the South China Sea).

bmiller said...

Don't think the US and Germany are in that neighborhood. The UK either.

bmiller said...

Strategic nuclear weapons are also not to address neighborhood threats.

Starhopper said...

So why are the UK, Germany, and the USA interfering in the internal affairs of a region half way around the world?

bmiller said...

I see you agree then that China is a military threat to countries that aren't their immediate neighbors. Thank you.

Starhopper said...

When we (or any other country) station our armed forces right up against China, we have made ourselves its immediate neighbor.

Just as Khrushchev's USSR became our next door neighbor when he stationed his missiles in Cuba. Or are you saying it was OK for him to do so?

bmiller said...

I see.

So since China has strategic nukes, that means everyone is their neighbor and so saying that they are a military threat to only their "neighbors" actually means everyone.

bmiller said...

Nukes make the world more cozy.

One Brow said...

Strategic nukes are a defensive measure against aggression, whether when held by China, the US, etc. They don't change that China is only militarily aggressive toward the countries around it's borders.

Starhopper said...

Hah! I misread your comment as "Nukes make the world more crazy" and was about to agree!

The world would be far better off without them. The US ought to set the example by unilaterally disarming without preconditions.

bmiller said...

Nukes are mostly peaceful.

Starhopper said...

The best ever description/explanation of nuclear deterrence.

bmiller said...

What seems remarkable to me are the people who rant about the dangers of non-communist Russia while giving a pass to Communist China. China is the #2 economy in the world with a goal of world domination while Russia's economy is behind Canada's.

It's almost as if they are on the side of global communism and are secretly cheering it on.

bmiller said...

For Friday:

A priest, a pastor, and a rabbit entered a clinic to donate blood.
The nurse asked the rabbit: "What's your blood type?"

"I'm probably a Type O", said the rabbit.

Victor Reppert said...

They have a free market in Russia? Since when?

https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/russias-economy-under-putin-crony-capitalism-state-capitalism

bmiller said...

See?

Russia! Russia! Russia! All while China is genociding religious minorities.

China appears to be the last best hope for global communism, so lefties need to divert attention from their crimes.

bmiller said...

It seems that during the Cold War when Russia was best hope for global communism and presented the greatest threat to the US lefties found all sorts of reasons to explain how they weren't so bad.

But suddenly when the population got rid of communism the lefties now see them as irredeemable. China is now the new girlfriend.

Starhopper said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Starhopper said...

bmiller's fevered imagination aside, I regard contemporary China as a far greater threat to Western Civilization than the old Soviet Union ever was. For the most part, there never was much threat that the commies would ever actually incinerate the Earth. But most importantly, their system was a disaster, both domestically and internationally. The Soviet Union was essentially one long bluff. They nearly lost in the Second World War and only managed to survive thanks to Hitler's incompetence and American Lend-Lease. The Khrushchev era could be likened to a global version of Three Card Monte. The Politburo knew they were outclassed by the US, so they dazzled world opinion with a spectacular series of space "firsts", which to the careful observer actually revealed their underlying weakness. The fact that the entire show was one giant house of cards was revealed when Bolshevism utterly collapsed under the gentlest of pushes from Poland's Solidarity labor movement and Pope John Paul II.

By contrast, as much as it pains me to admit this, China's contemporary system actually works, and looks like it will be with us for the long haul. We have every reason to fear China, because they have demonstrated that authoritarianism can be successful. In contrast to the Cold War, when the USSR faced a competent West with superior science and a stable democracy in the US, China now faces a West in thrall to anti-science cultists, conspiracy theorists, and demagogic political charlatans. Poor Khrushchev could only dream of such an opposition.

Oh, and by the way, China's economic structure has no resemblance to Communism whatsoever. It could more accurately be described as Confucianism with modern industrial technology.

bmiller said...

China now faces a West in thrall to anti-science cultists, conspiracy theorists, and demagogic political charlatans.

Now, now. There aren't that many committed Dems. And more are leaving every day.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
China appears to be the last best hope for global communism, so lefties need to divert attention from their crimes.

An opinion that can only be seriously maintained by people who don't read left-wing political blogs.

Starhopper said...

It's all of a piece with bmiller's unexamined worldview: left equals evil, right equals good. It's so easy that way. No need to examine one's own conscience. The "other guy" is to blame for everything. Your own tribe is beyond reproach. No reasoning, no investigation, no argument required.

bmiller's attitude is even worse than simply believing that everything "leftists" do is evil; he goes further to believe that if something is evil, "leftists" do it. He might as well just call them "demons" because there's no need for actual thinking when you're fighting a holy war.

bmiller said...

It appears to me that projection is common to leftists.

They refuse to engage in reasoned debate and then accuse the other side of doing exactly what they are doing themselves.

I suspect that for some of them, they have come to the conclusion that "reason" does not lead to truth or that there is no such thing as "truth" anyway. For others, I suspect they are just not very good at it so they will attach themselves to anything that justifies their feelings at the moment.

Starhopper said...

Whenever bmiller accuses anyone of projection, he must be looking into a mirror.

bmiller said...

As far as good and evil goes I've noticed that, at base, my disagreements with them stem from their, at least tacit, adherence to consequentialism. I can understand that view from atheists but not so much from professing Christians.

Utilitarianism/consequentialism came about in the Western world as secular philosophy came to the conclusion that either God did not exist or if He did, he simply did not care what goes on in the world. Therefore there is no basis for objective morality. If morality could not be based of God's law then society needs to base it on something else...hence "the ends justifies the means".

Since leftists apparently have adopted moral relativism as the basis of their moral belief system, then of course, as a Christian, I believe some of the things they want to do are inherently immoral since they are in opposition to the objective moral law.

One Brow said...

Speaking as an actual leftist, I believe there is a truth, but not one you can "come to". The best you can do is get a little closer than you were. I've seen reasoning lead to truth and from truth, because GIGO.

I've tried engaging in reasoned debate with you in the past, to be met by the equivalent of you sticking your fingers in your ears. So, I fully believe that your experience is that leftists don't try to reason with you. You just misidentify the cause.

bmiller said...

Whenever bmiller accuses anyone of projection, he must be looking into a mirror.

Well I guess you've proven me wrong with your demonstration of reason and facts.

bmiller said...

One Brow,

You've just admitted that you don't think reasoned debate leads to Truth because garbage in-garbage out.

I noticed that a long time ago and you're welcome to that opinion. But stop and think about it for a second. If I believe that the purpose for engaging in reasoned debate is to reach the Truth and you don't, then why should I waste time in a debate with you? And what can I conclude about your desire to have a "reasoned debate" other than it just being one of any number of amoral ways for you to reach whatever "ends" you have in mind.

That's why I generally ignore your posts.

bmiller said...

Furthermore, when one is engaging in debate with another (who is sceptical about rational debate relating to the Truth) and the first party points out a logical fallacy employed by the second party the second party, the second party will just shrug and say "so what?". Why should the second party agree to abide by the belief system of the first party.

Happens all the time. Here.

Starhopper said...

"Happens all the time. Here."

It most certainly does. The ad hominem fallacy is used by bmiller in almost every one of his postings. All he has to do is label something as "leftist" and voila!, the argument (at least as far as he is concerned) is over (and he of course wins).

No need to engage rationally, no need to investigate the issue, no need to consider the other's point of view. No need even to think at all. Done and dusted.

bmiller said...

You are too "large" to be responding like that.

bmiller said...

And for the record, I argued that leftists spent a lot of time defending the Soviet Union. That is either true or false, but is not an attack on anyone's character. It think it's true and I can provide evidence.

Likewise, it is common among non-leftists to notice that leftists tend to project. Again, it is either true or false, but is not an attack on any particular person's character.

So the charge of ad hominem does not apply to my arguments...at least in these cases.

bmiller said...

For perspective to those following along.
When I pointed out that Starhopper contradicted himself, he responded by quoting Walt Whitman:

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

One Brow said...

bmiller,

You've just admitted that you don't think reasoned debate leads to Truth because garbage in-garbage out.

If you were engaging honestly, you would have noted that I said reasoned debate can lead towards truth as well as away from it.

I noticed that a long time ago ...

I have also noted your unwillingness to engage in an honest discussion.

If I believe that the purpose for engaging in reasoned debate is to reach the Truth and you don't, ...

Different people bring different purposes to a reasoned debate. As a past example, cigarette companies used to insist on reasoned debate, one to which they brought false information and false methodology, as a method of trying to deny the connection between tobacco and cancer.

In your case, I see very little reason to believe that you accept the purpose of reasoned debate is to reach the turth. Your history indicates that you use reasoned debate to support your pre-determined conclusions (which you cast as "Truth", notice how you capitalize it, thereby slanting the discussion).

... then why should I waste time in a debate with you?

Please feel free to continue to not debate me. I am quite comfortable pointing out your shallow and selective use of evidence, your twisting of definitions, your willingness to examine specks and ignore planks, etc., without need of your response.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
And for the record, I argued that leftists spent a lot of time defending the Soviet Union. That is either true or false, but is not an attack on anyone's character. It think it's true and I can provide evidence.

I'm a leftist. Please provide your evidence that I defend the Soviet Union.

Likewise, it is common among non-leftists to notice that leftists tend to project. Again, it is either true or false, but is not an attack on any particular person's character.

Projection is a human characteristic, common to leftists and rightists.

bmiller said...

I'm a leftist. Please provide your evidence that I defend the Soviet Union.

This is a good example of why I ignore almost everything One Brow posts. It's a waste.

I did not claim all leftists defended the Soviet Union, much less him. Now either he understood that and willfully misrepresented his understanding to "score" rhertorical points or he honestly cannot understand what my point was. In either case I've concluded that even if I wanted to communicate with this guy it just is not possible to have a constructive discussion with him. The end.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
I did not claim all leftists defended the Soviet Union, much less him.

Then use "some", and don't present it as a trait of leftism. Argue honestly.

In either case I've concluded that even if I wanted to communicate with this guy it just is not possible to have a constructive discussion with him. The end.

Constructive discussion would require a willingness to honestly represent other people's positions, a step you have only rarely demonstrated.

bmiller said...

Ah. The former was right. Thought so.

bmiller said...

To stop Ronald Reagan in 1984, Ted Kennedy reached out to the Soviet Union.

Starhopper said...

"To stop Ronald Reagan in 1984, Ted Kennedy reached out to the Soviet Union."

To stop Hilary Clinton, Donald Trump solicited and accepted Russian interference in the 2016 election.

bmiller said...

Walter Duranty and The New York Times have blood on their hands in this historical re-enactment.

bmiller said...

Leftists still defend the old Soviet Union

bmiller said...

And Cuba's communist dictatorship

bmiller said...

These were not unknown leftist journalists fawning over murderous socialist dicatorships but "mainstream" big name lefties. Just like now.

As Michael David-Fox writes in Showcasing the Great Experiment, one of the great ironies of modern intellectual history is the fact that "the height of Western admiration ... coincided with the most repressive phrase of Soviet communism" (p. 2). Edgar Snow did the same with his glowing reports of Chinese development under Mao, even as the Great Leap Forward claimed an estimated 30 million lives. American media did the same with the emergence of Fidel Castro, who was interviewed by Edward R. Murrow in 1959 at a time when Americans were not yet certain if Castro was friend or foe, and later by Barbara Walters, among others. More recently, a regular stream of network journalists have filed reports from Cuba suggesting that the American trade embargo is harming ordinary Cubans or that conditions on the island are not as politically repressive as once thought. These useful idiots are just following in the footsteps of Dreiser, Snow, and the Webbs, and of a host of American and British journalists who have found Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hugo Chávez, and every other communist tyrant acceptable because they, the journalists, shared the same ideology.

One Brow said...

Reasoning would not confuse far-right slanted articles with evidence.

Starhopper said...

Wow! I finally got around to checking out bmiller's link in his latest posting. If this is representative of where he gets his ideas and "informatio0n" from, it goes a long way toward explaining his batshit crazy misunderstanding (and downright falsehoods) about "leftism".

Bmiller, you desperately need to get outside your radical rightwing bubble and join the rest of the world in objective reality.

bmiller said...

Dude.

I linked to Liberation School (a Socialist site), The Daily Beast, Reason, Washington Examiner and American Thinker. Those represent views from the far left to the American right. This is an excellent case of projection. I present views from a variety of sources and you claim I'm in a bubble because they aren't all far left.

It's also telling that you have no counter-argument other than attacking a source, not whether any of the facts presented are true or not.

Starhopper said...

In your latest posting, you linked to only one site, the self-styled "American Thinker". That was the link I was referring to. And yes, sometimes by identifying the source (such as, if you had linked to a QAnon site), the argument is over.

I myself regularly read sites I am in 100% disagreement with (other than UFO sites - that's a bridge too far), solely in order to avoid being in a bubble. I sometimes learn from them, but I would never dream of citing them in an argument (other than to debunk them).

bmiller said...

but I would never dream of citing them in an argument (other than to debunk them).

Debunk away.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
It's also telling that you have no counter-argument other than attacking a source, not whether any of the facts presented are true or not.

You presented no argument to counter, except perhaps that "some leftists defended the Soviet Union", which no one disagrees with and is not particularly relevant to anything.

One Brow said...

Just out of curiosity, would you agree that "some rightists defended facist Germany", and if so, would there be a reason that would be less relevant somehow?

Starhopper said...

I recall hearing on NPR some years ago the story of how industrialists in England were actually selling materials necessary to make bombsights to Germany during the blitz, via the (then neutral) United States. I have just wasted an hour attempting to find confirmation of that story on the internet, but so far with no success.

Also relevant is Lenin's famous quote that the capitalists would sell him the rope by which to hang them.

So I guess no one's hands are clean (big surprise - not).

bmiller said...

So after all the hysterical and defamatory accusations against me (all forms of ad hominem) it turns out no one disagreed with me anyway.

Instead we've now moved onto a different type of ad hominem. Tu quoque.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
So after all the hysterical and defamatory accusations against me (all forms of ad hominem) it turns out no one disagreed with me anyway.

I haven't said anything defamatory, and I have no idea what you think you presented that could be disagreed with or agreed with, outside a a few facts with no context.

Starhopper said...

Nothing to do with all the sturm und drang of this wannabe conversation, but I thought I might humanize myself by sharing what I'm reading right now. I have this terrible habit of reading 8, 9, 10, or a dozen books simultaneously. I keep trying to pare the number down, but as soon as I've finished one book I pick up another.

At the moment, I am reading (in no particular order):

1. The Prophets, by Abraham Heschel (on page 276 out of 632) Biblical commentary
2. Mercury Rising, by Jeff Shesol (on page 270 out of 332) History
3. Missionaries, by Phil Klay (on page 199 out of 404) a Novel
4. This Day, by Wendell Berry (on page 28 out of 397) Poetry
5. The Phenomenon of Man, by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (on page 191 out of 313) Science
6. Roverandom, by J.R.R. Tolkien (on page 117 out of 168) Fantasy
7. Le Morte d'Arthur, by Malory (for maybethe 5th time) (on page 70 out of 726) Literature
8. Jeremiah (currently in the middle of Chapter 18) Holy Scripture

So let's hear what y'all are reading!

bmiller said...

The Myth of Democratic Socialism

Limited Perspective said...

As an occasional reader of the comments here, bmiller is reasonable. The Starhopper dude is nuts. Victor reasonable. Brow guy reasonable. Star guy-- Friggin nuts!

Starhopper said...

Considering who else has been called "friggin nuts" throughout history, I will consider that a complement. I am in good company.

Limited Perspective said...

The vast majority of people called crazy in the world were/are actually crazy. Yes most nut cases try to to identify with some historical figure, but that's what crazy people do.

Marc said...

I believe that one legitimate ground for a country not to accept a large number of new immigrants is that they wouldn't be able to find a work and that the State wouldn't be able to help them financially.
I think that a Welfare State is a valuable good and that it unfortunately isn't compatible with limitless migration.

Starhopper said...

How about a "Welfare World" in which everyone receives benefits from a single pot, no matter where they live? That way, there'd be less incentive to migrate.