Knows whereof he speaks
Tuesday May 22, 2007
A reader in the Texas capital who's a friend of mine has been telling me from some time now about no end of problems from a day labor site in his neighborhood, established by the People's Republic of Austin. It...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
He could just be an arrogant and egotistical busybody who thinks the whole world revolves around him. Maybe he should offer that next time someone calls him a racist.
Here's a thought - Instead of complaining about it, or actually doing something racist like try to shut down their jobs or kick them out of town, why not do something to make life better for them and by extension, your whole community?
Like what?
Covering one's eyes, ears, and mouth, and subsequently sticking their head in the sand? Hmmmmmm.
What are you if you are a poor man in Outer Nowhere Mexico who cannot support his family? A bad man who should stay put. What are you if you cannot support your family growing corn because the United States Government pays for the growing of corn so that American growers can and do sell it for less than the price of production? A complainer who should stay put. What are you if you take enormous personal risks to come to the United States illegally (because they won't let you in legally) to do hard, dirty work out of the day labor site for little money, but more than you could ever hope for at home? A law-breaker. What are you if you live in a squalid apartment complex so you can save money so you can send it home so that your brothers and sisters have something to eat? An illegal alien who's bringing down the neighborhood of the rich people down the street. What are you if you manage to bring your children here so they have some hope of an education and a better life? A destroyer of the schools of the rich people down the street. What are you if you are rich but cannot see the suffering of the poor people around you? Someone who needs a refresher course in the gospel.
What are you if you cross national boundaries in violation of immigration laws? An illegal alien, who is subject to the penalties for breaking the law, up to and including deportation.
What are you if you cross national boundaries in violation of immigration laws? An illegal alien, who is subject to the penalties for breaking the law, up to and including deportation. Sure, cs. But I'd do it if I had to to support my family, and I bet you would too.
What are you if you hire illegal day laborers at a fraction of what you'd pay American workers, knowing that their desperation and poverty will cause them to accept the wages, work in non-OSHA environments, put up with abusive situations, and generally act like the serfs you think they are? An exploiter. But, by all means, let's continue to make it easy for the exploiters. Otherwise, our economy would probably crash, right?
Susan: An illegal alien who's bringing down the neighborhood of the rich people down the street. What are you if you manage to bring your children here so they have some hope of an education and a better life? A destroyer of the schools of the rich people down the street. I have to laugh at this because I know the guy who sent it to me, and far from being a toff, he's a middle-class civil servant. I know it must satisfy you emotionally, Susan, to think of people like this guy and me as cigar-puffing, top hat-wearing Monopoly tycoons, but we're actually middle-class shlubs trying to make our way by following the rules. The actual rich don't have these problems in their neighborhoods, dear.
Well, I think that depends on how you define "rich". If middle class Americans were not astronomically wealthy by the standards of most of the rest of the world, there wouldn't be so many illegal aliens trying to enter the U.S.
I am sorry to see that this issue is so polarising. It seems to me that this is a difficult situation where no one is really in the wrong; naturally no one wants their property values to decline, for crime to rise in their neighbourhood, for school standards to fall. But it's equally clear that most illegal aliens are motivated by wanting to pull their family up above desperate circumstances, and how can one not sympathise with that?
As long as anti-immigrant people can define them, as something less than human they can continue to ignore their humanity. They can then easily take the stand that they don't give a good god damn what happens to those people because illegals infringe upon the anti's right to not have to deal with the reality that "things are tough all over - get the eff over it and do something positive instead of bitching about it." But that's not going to happen, because it requires that they actually put their money where their mouths are. All men are created equal, according to what we believe, but these aren't men. Once those poor folks cross the border illegaly, they stop being men and women and become "illegal aliens." They're therefore not due the dignity and respect a human is. If it impacts Americans' bottom lines in any way shape or form, screw their humanity.
So aren't most of the immigrants that are in y'all's neck of the woods Catholic? I'm sure there are churches in those slummy areas. Perhaps I'm being a little too Pollyanna about the issue, but what's wrong with working with the churches to clean up the neighborhood or open a park or put a vegetable garden in an empty lot where drug deals go down, or starting a neighborhood watch, or - i dunno - treating these people like they were people regardless of their ability to get a green card? FFS- WWJD?
Jennifer is right on the money. Rod, you may not be used to thinking of yourself as rich, but compared to the the rest of the world, middle-class Americans are the wealthy and powerful. People are leaving their homes, their families, their very lives behind and risking these same lives to cross into the U.S.to work for ungrateful stingy bosses surrounded by people who wish they didn't exist.
Yet, I'm to believe that your correspondent is the injured party here? Why? Because he complained and nobody gave in to his demands? Nobody gave the value of his property the attention it deserves? O, the humanity.
While my friend TV is doing what I often do -- let passion reign -- I shall attempt to answer the very reasonable rebuttal question to stop complaining and do something: do what? Fact: many businesses near the border exploit immigrant workers. Fact: US workers would compete for those jobs if they paid a living wage. Fact: a region that is at or near full employment is going to have sufficient revenue to support an influx of immigrants, who will be self-limiting because of the relative scarcity of jobs. So: raise the federal minimum wage, and enforce it. Before anyone jumps to conclusions here, I have a couple of concessions to offer. 1) Enforcement bureaucracies are very difficult to create and maintain. Ask anyone who works in child welfare, paroles or municipal codes. I don't say it's impossible, and I've seen a couple of very good examples of enforcement departments, but... 2) Legislature motivation is the key. If the locality doesn't have lawmakers willing to bite a few bullets and create enforcement that works, there is very little else that will work, because... ... a 2,000 mile fence is going to have alot of corpses on the south side of it. I agree that we need a secure border. I don't agree that fence building is even 10% of the total solution.
Pardon me for being blunt. Why don't they fix their own country? Seriously. Mexico has been blessed with enormous natural resources and a hard-working population. Should be enough to make them all rich by global standards. Could it be that the export of the clever and desperate to the US will make Mexico even more of a basket case than it already is? Could it be that our own corporate and governmental elites are just fine with that? Is this maybe ultimately about not just supressing wages, but insuring a perpetual supply of easily exploitable helots, Mexican and American?
Whoa, elmo. Did you read the whole thing? He complained about crimes happening in his neighborhood. Is that a demand, or is it the right of a citizen to call for police intervention?
So aren't most of the immigrants that are in y'all's neck of the woods Catholic? That fact is indeed the most blackly comic aspect to this entire issue. For all the impassioned sermonizing about how all believers are Brothers and Sisters in Christ, and the suffering of His Church in the third world, when it comes right down to it most Christians in America would prefer them to stay right where they are, on the other side of a well-defended border.
I am a native Texan and my wife is a Syrian Christian from Damascus and her family has known nothing but economic struggle in a "third world" economy.
We were recently married and I submitted her visa papers to enter the U.S. almost a year ago and we are still waiting. The whole process and separation has been agonizing and we've spent thousands on legal documentation and plane tickets for me to visit her as well as to speak to the U.S. embassy in Damascus. We've patiently endured though and the wait is almost over. There is not even anything exceptional about our case that is causing the delay- her papers have gone through the system in a routine way.
I know others who have the same story and their brides and family members are from all over -not from Middle East countries (so it is not just a Middle East thing).
There are myriads of Mexican families out there that are struggling through the same legal process that I am.
So do I not have the right to criticize the masses of people that completely ignore the standard legal path to residency and citizenship? Do not those Mexicans that have gone through the grueling legal process have a right to criticize? Am I a racist for being perplexed at what we are seeing?: a system that enforces difficult legal standards only for those that choose to take the legal path... a system that at the same time rarely enforces the law for those that ignore the normal process.
I have to laugh at this because I know the guy who sent it to me, and far from being a toff, he's a middle-class civil servant. I know it must satisfy you emotionally, Susan, to think of people like this guy and me as cigar-puffing, top hat-wearing Monopoly tycoons, but we're actually middle-class shlubs trying to make our way by following the rules. We're all unimaginably rich by the standards of the people we're talking about.
This discussion reminds me of the flak that homeschoolers used to face. "How can you desert the public schools? Why not support them, try to make them better, etc etc? What will happen if all the best kids split?" Sorry, but my kids are growing up. They get one and only one childhood and adolescence. You go stay in and fix your schools if you care enough; we're outta there. I have every sympathy with the guy who leaves his neighborhood when it's going down the tubes thanks to druggies of whatever nationality or ethnic group, thugs, etc. I feel compassion for his plundered investment that was done for the sake of hirers of cheap illegal labor. And just as I am not grateful for the educrats who wanted to keep my kids penned in their schools, I don't appreciate the businesspeople and bureaucrats who are insulated from life in the neighborhood and expect those who are there to just deal with it.
Jennifer wrote: If middle class Americans were not astronomically wealthy by the standards of most of the rest of the world, there wouldn't be so many illegal aliens trying to enter the U.S. Would you (or Susan, or both) mind expanding on this point? For most of the last 20 years, every data collection I've seen puts 70% of the total wealth of this nation in 10% of the population. As a member of the middle class, I would very much like to know which part of my "wealth" I should give up to make coming here so much less attractive. I hope you can forgive me my incredulity. The middle class has been taxed to death, watching that top 10% get richer for no better reason than they already are rich. In the meantime, let's take one-quarter of their wealth and spend it to solve the immigration problem. One-quarter of 70 is 17.5. What do you think 17.5% of our nation's wealth could buy?
Mexico should indeed be improving itself so that this issue is not such a huge problem. But they have a rather patchwork political past and a long ways to go close the gap.
It's also true that middle-class Americans, unless they live in an area with exceeding high costs of living (like NYC or Hawaii) have a standard of living exceeding most of humankind's standard, both in the past, and by present global standards. Only Canada, Continental Europe, the UK, and Australia and New Zealand really compare. And those nations do not make up a very large percentage of the planet's population at all.
What do I mean by these standards? Running water. Electricity 24 hours a day. Some form of sewage removal, whether septic or municipal. Basic services such as garbage removal, public libraries, and free education past the eighth grade. Access to (okay you can CERTAINLY argue this one in the U.S.!) the full range childhood vaccinations and prenatal care for women, as minimum medical services. I've lived and worked in countries (notably Iraq) and have worked with people from countries where none of the above were accessible for any but the elite of the major urban populations.
My point is, there IS a vacuum. And short of draconian measures, there will be those willing to take considerable risks to close that vacuum. For our neighbors to the south, proximity eliminates much of risk. Africans, for instance, drown in the ocean every week trying to cross over the Europe in jerry-rigged rafts.
Ergo, we increase the risk, keeping within humanitarian guidelines (ie we do not create a Berlin Wall-style no man's land.) And offer some form of guestworker program, very regulated, and limited.
Why would someone desperate enough to risk coming here illegally be stopped by a limited guestworker program? If they didn't win the guestworker lotto they'd just do what they're doing now.
One can be compassionate to the plight of people choosing to break the law to enter a more prosperous country without ignoring the illegality of the action. Does the process need to be more compassionate? Yes. But as demonstrated by an earlier comment, the principle of justice demands that those who have broken the law should not be allowed to jump in front of those following the legal process. There is no right to immigration-at- will in our national constitution, the U.N. charter, or even any religious texts that I am aware of. The principle of national sovereignty dictates that countries have a right to decide who, and how, to allow immigration.
Methinks there's a few too many people who say a little too loudly "I'm not a racist!" No one is saying you are, except that a lot of people are openly embracing a "white flight" menality to get away from undesirables who do the menial labor that, yes, Americans are unwilling to do (even if you did pay lettuce-pickers at 10 dollars an hour, I doubt anyone reading this would actually do it). I'm not saying this to villify anyone; on the contrary, this is an isssue where a disapassionate analysis would do some good once we get past the easy emotionalism of "protecting our sovereignity" while simultaneously asking for the lowest prices possible for food and retail goods. For the record, no, I'm not a WSJ-reading gated-community resident living in a non-border state.
DU
Sorry, but my kids are growing up. They get one and only one childhood and adolescence. You go stay in and fix your schools if you care enough; we're outta there. Take that attitude, expand it to the remainder of life outside of the public schools, and you have just articulated the problem more succinctly than anyone else has. Why should those people care about beaurocratic BS laws when folks like this don't care even if they can eat? We're either in this together, or it's Dog Eat Dog. If it's the latter, then tough noogies to all those negatively impacted Americans. Can't have it both ways.
This following is intended to be genuine and absolutely, totally, 100% without snark. I suspect that the likelihood of it being read as intended is quite low. Nonetheless, here we go. Why should those people care about beaurocratic BS laws when folks like this don't care even if they can eat? How about a rephrase of this so that it actually reflects what was said: "...when folks like this place what they deem to be the best interests of their own children ahead of the interests of people who, all else being equal, are breaking the law?" Does your "All in this together"/"Dog eat dog" hypothesis still work? If so, what does it look like on a practical level? Is it wrong for people to put what they believe to the best interests of their own children first? When two such people who are doing so come into conflict with one another, how should that conflict be resolved? Who decides? Richard
Franklin Evans: I didn't comment on the guys complaints on public drunkenness and drug dealing. Obviously those are crimes that should be stopped. Yet these are also crimes that take place in all communities (including my wealthy anglo town) and nothing racist or classist about asking the city to enforce the law. But that was one tiny point in a laundry list of immigrant-specific affronts (the day labor bus, the non-English speaking kids) that the writer seems to feel merit more compassion and concern than the very survival of the people whose presence is an inconvenience to him.
The problem with your restatement, Richard, is that it hides a very real problem with our culture... well, with prevalent attitudes in our society. Try it this way (and I'll explain after why I still don't like it): "when folks like this place the short term interests of just their own family ahead of the ongoing and long term health of their community." There are still several things wrong with it (and I will explain), but it does point to the problem I see: we value short term goals over long term goals, and almost never (without a crisis or catastrophe first) figure out what hindsight tells us: that a long term investment gives us much greater overall returns than any short term goal ever could. I do not mean to indict anyone for being selfish. In many aspects of life, selfish is good. But I do mean to challenge everyone to look at the usual reactions to change: not in my back yard; I can't trust anyone else to provide for my family; I don't know my neighbors. My point is something Rod mentions elsewhere, that we see our residences as a commodity, and not as homes within a community. With all due respect to my friend Major Wooton, he illustrates my point very well. Flight from problems makes the problems 100% unsolvable. And with children of my own I have every agreement with not putting them in danger just to make a point... but where is there a place that is 100% safe? Just from where I sit, I don't see much difference in probabilities, between the chance my kid will be mugged (happened to my son) and a kid being hurt or killed by another drunken kid driving a car. In the city, a mugging is more likely; in the 'burbs I see stories about once per month, and that's just the kids that get caught. It's not just a numbers game. I know that. I don't mean to minimize very real concerns. But in the end, I have the example of the people who were my neighbors growing up in a nearby suburb, who used to live in the Osage neighborhood (yes, the same one burned down during the MOVE confrontation). They were all quite ready to tell anyone who'd listen that they were "chased out" by the "damn ni@@ers", who did nothing but be the ones with money to buy homes on their block. (Three guesses why property values were low enough that blacks could afford to buy them in the late 50s to early 60s.) In the end, I had plenty of white neighbors with trashy yards, unkempt houses and nasty kids, while the Osage neighborhood became a model of urban living, with tree-lined streets, kids playing in each other's yards, and not one rundown house in sight. And if those Osage kids walked down the wrong block in my town, it was my white neighbors who were there to heckle them and mug them.
I'm sorry elmo (I hope you see this past my long rant), but local crime is the big point, and the rest are the "tiny" points. If the "laundry" list were those tiny points, and the man had left, I'd be with you in criticizing him. But crime is the deal breaker. I think you are being too harsh in your judgment, taking the whole list together.
Franklin Evans: This writer likens criminal behavior with behavior that he just doesn't approve of, committed by people whom he doesn't like, apparently because they didn't have the foresight to be born in the U.S.
I guess we'll just have to disagree.
Fair enough, elmo.
Franklin: So, just trying to understand--doing what one believes is in the best interests of their children is valuing short-term gain over long-term gain? I'm asking these questions the way that I am because, frankly, I'm baffled by what's being discussed. On the one hand, I do not believe in the least that the best way to deal with genuinely desperate people is to shove a gun in their faces. On the other hand, I believe that people who are here illegally do not deserve the same treatment as those who are here legally. On still the other hand (I hear the strains of Fiddler on the Roof coming up), one thing that is clear is that everybody has a short-term financial interest in the system remaining broken, including me and everyone else posting here, which is why it won't be fixed anytime soon. Richard
Without the Hispanic immigrants, the U.S. is in long-term demographic decline just like Europe, where populations are set to become geriatric and half as large in a generation or so because of failure to reproduce. Look at these numbers for non-hispanic whites by age groups: age 0-5: 11.2 million 5-10: 11.3 million 10-15: 12.1 15-20 13.0 See a trend? The numbers on average are going down each year, it would seem. But it is worse than the numbers show because the age group at its prime childbearing years, among non-hispanic whites, is smaller than in times past because of the "baby bust" that followed the baby boom. For example, there are 8.1 million non-hispanic white females age 45-50(the baby boomers); there are only 6 million females age 25-29, (and only 5.8 million 30-35) My point: in demographics, the present is the predictor of the future. Without these migrants, how in the world are we going to take care of our aging population. We need young active workers to support all us aging boomers.
If only half of the 12 million illegal immigrants are from Mexico, that makes it 5% of the Mexican population. How convenient that the poorest 5 % (the ones that cause most of the "trouble")can leave and cause "trouble" for someone else. No wonder the Mexiccan government hates fences. It solves their problems and they send money home! Great deal for Mexico.
Richard, I was rather obtuse, wasn't I? :) It's never so simple, as I and any parent can aver. I can easily see myself moving simply for the kids' sakes -- and came pretty damn close when a drive by claimed three victims 100 feet from my back door, in a period where the drug traffic war zone 10 blocks away spilled over nearly to my stoop. What kept us there was that our local police (despite having many of the bad image problems of any large city force) are actually doing their best with what they have, and they don't need a PR dept. to show it. The bad patch lasted about six months. I and my neighbors got on a first name basis with many patrol cops. The nearby hospital opened its auditorium to every neighborhood group who wanted it, for free, and at least two cops (besides the CR officer) showed up at every meeting. It's a very simplisitc way to put it, and I hate argument by analogy anyway, but the police had a much stronger motivation to serve and protect because we were there, real faces on real people, showing them that we wanted them to serve and protect. Given the geography of my neighborhood (large playing field on one side), if there'd been a mass exodus when things got tough, I have little doubt that it would be a war zone right now. Instead, every weekday evening and all weekend the baseball field is full of kids, the small bleachers packed with parents. Try Niven & Pournelle's The Mote in God's Eye: on the gripping hand... if I had a rational solution to offer (besides my half-assed suggestion about the minimum wage), I'd be banging on doors and harassing legislators. One thing I do not like in this whole argument, is citing increases in this and decreases in that, when we've had crime and infrastructure problems out the wazoo for decades for our own, native-born citizens. We should have long since been going about fixing those things (besides grassroots projects that depend on volunteers and little funding); instead, it takes -- as usual -- a crisis and handy scapegoats to get action. I don't mind telling you, I'm sick of it.
Why should those people care about beaurocratic BS laws when folks like this don't care even if they can eat? How about a rephrase of this so that it actually reflects what was said: "...when folks like this place what they deem to be the best interests of their own children ahead of the interests of people who, all else being equal, are breaking the law?" I would *love* to know how that self-serving twaddle is supposed to masquerade for something that "actually reflects what was said." All things being equal, immigrants who don't wait in line for a beaurocratic massah to allow them to eat may be "breaking the law," but by supporting that law to favor you and yours, you are saying that you don't care if they and theirs get to eat. Your property values are more important under that paradigm than their lives. Pretty it up all you like, "If you break a law you don't get to eat" is a position no less morally bankrupt than eugenics.
I have a question to pose and this is as close to the subject as I can find to it: If the place where my husband was employed for 22 years has just moved to Mexico to give them work to do while taking money out of our pockets, then why are the Mexicans coming here? One would think there aren't any able-bodied Mexican citizens left there to be able to lend workforce to a plant. I thought all that was left behind there were grandparents and minor children.
~tv: I hope that rant made you feel better, but it didn't answer the question. Instead, it prompted more: What purpose, then, do laws serve? What purpose, then, do borders serve? Are you saying that laws and borders are outdated or inapplicable concepts? Should it matter that there are people who followed the rules to come here and people who didn't? Is their desperation a factor that outweighs all others in terms of legal standing? Again, back to the unanswered questions:
What does what you're talking about look like on a practical level? Is it wrong for people to put what they believe to the best interests of their own children first? When two such people who are doing so come into conflict with one another, how should that conflict be resolved? Who decides? Richard
What purpose, then, do laws serve? What purpose, then, do borders serve? Great question. Why don't you tell me what purpose they serve, because I can't see how they're serving in this case except to make moneyed white folks feel superior and indignant. Are you saying that laws and borders are outdated or inapplicable concepts? No, but that's not an unfactual statement. Should it matter that there are people who followed the rules to come here and people who didn't? Should it matter to whom? Is their desperation a factor that outweighs all others in terms of legal standing? Yes - it's called the reality of circumstance. If it was YOU and YOUR family that was starving, or had been pushed off your land, would YOU chalk it up to "your lot in life" or would you do whatever you could to ensure you survived? Is it wrong for people to put what they believe to the best interests of their own children first? If it were a case of your children starving vs. their children starving, your question might have merit. What you're really asking is "Is it wrong for people to value return on investment over the lives of other humans?" When two such people who are doing so come into conflict with one another, how should that conflict be resolved? Who decides? Again, if we're comparing apples and apples, in the Dog-Eat-Dog paradigm your view encourages, it's the one who can kick the others' ass that decides. Is that *really* the future you want for your soon-to-be-minority-children?
Again, if we're comparing apples and apples, in the Dog-Eat-Dog paradigm your view encourages, it's the one who can kick the others' ass that decides. "My view"? I haven't expressed a view here, I've asked questions. The closest I've come to expressing a view is to post the following earlier this morning: I'm asking these questions the way that I am because, frankly, I'm baffled by what's being discussed. On the one hand, I do not believe in the least that the best way to deal with genuinely desperate people is to shove a gun in their faces. On the other hand, I believe that people who are here illegally do not deserve the same treatment as those who are here legally. On still the other hand (I hear the strains of Fiddler on the Roof coming up), one thing that is clear is that everybody has a short-term financial interest in the system remaining broken, including me and everyone else posting here, which is why it won't be fixed anytime soon. I'll add that I don't have a clue how to fix it. I'm not about to advocate anarchy as a solution, since I don't see how anything but the most cynical worldview can assert that laws and borders are merely the fence the rich build around their property and privilege. Nonetheless, how is this problem fixed within the framework of rule of law and national sovereignty? Richard
I don't see how anything but the most cynical worldview can assert that laws and borders are merely the fence the rich build around their property and privilege. One man's cynicism is another's reality. What can I say? We have fundamentally different worldviews. It's not surprising, seeing as how moneyed white folks are on the beneficiary side fo the fence when it comes to "law and order" that they still have faith in it. "It's the law" absolves them of any Christian responsibility (though this is probably the *only* case I can see moneyed white conservatives daring to claim that this is *not* a "Christian nation.") Would moneyed white people say the same if the shoe was on the other foot and the law demanded half their income to pay for the basics of life for the poor? Would they be right or wrong to ignore that law?
Bluntly, your self-serving assertion of moral superiority to those with whom you disagree doesn't answer the question. Perhaps nobody can. Richard
"What you're really asking is "Is it wrong for people to value return on investment over the lives of other humans?" I think ~tv is on to something here in that the problem with illegal immigration, like so many other problems, is a spiritual one and requres spiritual means to solve it. I do not have the answers but I believe that the place to begin is with the one who is Love Incarnate, Jesus Christ. So I ask the roughly 85% of U.S. citizens who claim to be Christian including our President: Do we follow Christ or not? Because if we do, then hear the words written in the Gospel of Matthew: "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Once we say yes to this, I mean really, really say yes, then our entire worldview has to change. The poor, whether in Mexico, in Africa, or in our own neighborhood, become our brothers/sisters. Instead of being faceless dark masses who are a problem to be solved, the poor will become people dear to us whose lives will be every bit as precious as our own. We will not view the world as zero-sum, dog-eat-dog, whoever-dies-with-the-most-toys-wins mentality that represents the real faith of most of us in the U.S. What we will have instead is eternal life. I can hear the naysayers now arguing that what I am saying here is not feasible. Jesus Christ did not tell us to be "realistic". He said that the world will hate us because we love him. So, I challenge us all, including me, to really, really love him beyond all reason. This is what will save the world.
Elmo: agreed entirely. The question becomes, in terms of making national policy as a secular state, what does this look like? Richard
Elmo, At some point, a follower of Jesus Christ must answer the following question: Do I feed my own, or do I let some of them starve so that I may feed some of my neighbors? That's baldly put, and I don't intend it to be misleading or a trick question. Where does the spirit lead you when you have just enough food for your four children and a starving family of eight shows up at your door? And I don't mean that as a one-time example. I'm talking about every dinner time every night for six months. At what point do you stop opening your door? The larger issue is really quite simple. It was insanely easy to anticipate the current situation, so my original question becomes this: 1) Is our government culpable for being unprepared to handle the Mexican immigrants? 2) Are the southwest communities culpable for being unable to handle the Mexican immigrants? It's all fine and good to ask what Jesus would do in your individual situation. How would he answer for the region, or the whole nation?
TV, You keep defining the problem. Those you rail against have agreed that there is a problem. If you start offering solutions (even in anger), they might have something to hang their rebuttals on. May I respectfully ask that you take a deep breath and reread their posts? I don't seem to see the reasons for anger that you are seeing.
~tv--
Comparing representative samples of text, I'll just suggest that maybe it's not so much what you say as how you say it. Or is saying "We see things differently because I'm morally superior to you" somehow not self-serving? Richard
Franklin: Do I feed my own, or do I let some of them starve so that I may feed some of my neighbors? Moneyed white homeowners who can afford to pick up and move to gated communities where they don't have to look at brown people or hear their uneducated pidgin English are not in any danger of starving. Re: why so angry? Did you *read* the letter Rod posted? Isn't *that* the attitude we're discussing? As far as offering solutions - scroll up: Perhaps I'm being a little too Pollyanna about the issue, but what's wrong with working with the churches to clean up the neighborhood or open a park or put a vegetable garden in an empty lot where drug deals go down, or starting a neighborhood watch, or - i dunno - treating these people like they were people regardless of their ability to get a green card? It's a solution, and one that involves PERSONAL action - not action-by-proxy via unenforceable laws and justice at swordpoint. But it'll never happen with the crowd who support the kind of NIMBY bullshit from the letter Rod posted. Those folks would rather stand behind the banner of "the law" because it doesn't involve any sacrifice on their part. And before anyone jumps on me with the "but why should *I* have sacrifce anything for a bunch of lawbreakers?" trope, the choice is plain as day: Do something to learn to live with these folks or build bigger walls and let our children and grandchildren deal with the fallout long after we're dead. I can guarantee you, that on a long enough timeline, white moneyed privilege is going to end. Whether it ends gracefully or not is entirely up to them.
Richard Barrett: As I said, I do not have the answers to what should be policy. None of us on this thread are policymakers and I don't think being able to come up with a 15-point plan to be enacted by Congress and signed by the President is required to comment on issues affecting us all.
I do know that for Christians, the place to begin is the place where I began, which is with the words of Jesus Christ who told us in Matthew exactly what we need to do to be his disciples. All of us non-policymakers who want to be like Christ then are obliged to look at the issue not as win/lose, but win/win. Understand though, that if we decide to choose the path of love we will not necessarily retain our current level of comfort, i.e., standard of living. Maybe we will all have to learn to live with less so that our brothers and sisters may have a little bit more. Maybe we can start with this: How about every Christian reading this actually start tithing 10% of our pre-tax income. There's many things we can do if we wanted to do it.
And Richard, friend, You're right - I *do* take a tone of moral superiority regarding this and many other issues where white moneyed Christians are holding themselves up as bastions of virtue instead of the cesspits of hypocrisy that they're being. Is it that I'm right that causes you pause, or is it the tone? Because if you're willing to overlook substance because of tone, I'd say that doesn't make you a very wise person. If you were standing on train tracks with a train approaching, would you ignore the person who says "Hey, asshole, you're gonna get hit by a train if you don't move" because of the tone? The children and grandchildren of moneyed white Americans aren't standing on those tracks, they're being tied to them by their moneyed white parents and grandparents who would prefer to let "law" replace "humanity." The train's still going to slam into every last one of them, whether I'm a jerk about it or not.
Franklin Evans asked me the following: Do I feed my own, or do I let some of them starve so that I may feed some of my neighbors? That's baldly put, and I don't intend it to be misleading or a trick question. Where does the spirit lead you when you have just enough food for your four children and a starving family of eight shows up at your door? Okay, I'll bite though I agree with ~tv that none of us here are in danger of starving. I'd feed all of us with the faith that God sent that family of 8 to my door with the intention of all of us having enough to eat. By the end of week 1, we'd start planting a garden to provide for all of us. By the end of month 6, I'd hope we'd have our own organic produce from our little garden to feed on. At no point would I stop opening my door. 1) Is our government culpable for being unprepared to handle the Mexican immigrants? 2) Are the southwest communities culpable for being unable to handle the Mexican immigrants? FE, I'd say we are all culpable. It's all fine and good to ask what Jesus would do in your individual situation. How would he answer for the region, or the whole nation? This isn't my individual situation. It is the whole region's and the whole nation's and the whole world's situation. But each of us can do what we can. Jesus Christ told us what to do, and it's up to his followers to do that. The problem is, to paraphrase someone famous, Christianity hasn't been tried and found useless, it simply hasn't been tried.
~tv:
Glad to know humility and reason are two of your strong points, and that there is no opposing viewpoint, just moral failing trying to protect itstelf. Also good to know that this empowers you to call names and hurl insults at, while ignoring questions from, people trying to engage in good faith. I'll make sure I remember that. Elmo: Overall, your point that this is a spiritual problem requiring a spiritual solution is one to which I can relate. I will simply suggest that I believe the point many here are making is that there is only so much a middle-class family with children trying to get by in this country can actually *do*. However, I will further suggest that this is a symptom of a bigger spiritual sickness in our culture--which I think is the overall topic of this blog. Richard
On a side note, who exactly did I call a name or hurl an insult at? Methinks you just don't like my tone, and it's causing you to invent any reason that will help you ignore the point.
~tv: "...white moneyed Christians are holding themselves up as bastions of virtue instead of the cesspits of hypocrisy that they're being." That's not insulting? You don't use "white moneyed " as a name-calling trope? In terms of ignoring your substance because of the tone--I've heard little of substance from you, just anger. I've asked questions to try to get some substance out of you, and gotten more anger. Richard
Tv, I get the feeling that you haven't read the whole thread. I get the feeling that my own posts have gone mostly unnoticed in the heat of the debate. No matter, but every challenge you aimed at me above was answered in my previous posts. See 05.22.07 - 9:38 pm, especially. And yes, I do believe your anger is clouding your delivery beyond recognition. You and elmo actually offer the same solution: local efforts. I really wish both of you would get a grip (yes, and I'm sorry, but I'm annoyed) and deal with the practical. Elmo, you would close your door at or before seeing your children's clothes hanging on skinny frames, because in your suburban setting the land will not support that sort of agriculture. Don't take my word for it at your peril, because while I have no intention of disrespecting your faith, God will not provide you with organic vegetables on redeveloped land. And by the end of week 1, it will be 24 at your door, because word will have spread of your generosity. So, you have not answered the spirit of my question. I phrased it to imply that you do not have an easy solution, you will not stop your 9-to-5 job and work 12 hours per day in a produce garden, and at no point will those coming to your door have any resources to offer to the situation. I will confess that my analogy is faulty, but so is your faith. What you imagine is not close to what reality is, right now. The basic issues are not that we have illegal immigrants, but that they put an unreasonable strain on our resources. Local generosity will not be enough, not by a long shot. To my knowledge, Jesus said nothing that can be applied to a regional or national level, not with any hope of working.
That's not insulting? You don't use "white moneyed " as a name-calling trope? It's only insulting if you feel insulted by it. One wonders what about it you feel is insulting.
"White and moneyed" is not a "name-calling trope." It is a means of distinguishing them from the poor brown Mexicans that are being "railed against" in the letter Rod posted.
If the description doesn't fit you, that is, if you are not white, or moneyed, or Christian, or one who uses that position as an excuse to keep other people down, then why take offense?
If you *are* a Christian, how do you reconcile lip-service to Jesus while hiding behind a law that protects your privilege over your brothers and sisters in Christ?
And dear, dear Franklin, What do you want me to say in response to your post of last night? That you're as much a victim of the rich bastards that enslave the world as the poor brown folks currently sneaking accross the imaginary line we call a border? Okay.
~tv:
Go look up the word "disingenuous". So, let me get this straight. All Christians who disagree with you on this are "hiding behind a law that protects [their] privilege over [their] brothers and sisters in Christ"? That's a rather mammoth judgment on your part. Would you care to back it up? Richard
Richard, In a word: Yeah, and I challenge you to *honestly* reconcile it otherwise. I am saying the law is unjust because it creates vast inequality. To disagree with that statement is to say that the law is perfectly just *in spite of* the vast inequality it creates. How can a law that places one class of humans over another class of humans be just? I have yet to see an argument from any anti-immigrant folks here, let alone from a Christian, that didn't have to do with protecting their privilege. How else do you explain the whining about property values? Or the whining about having to pay taxes so poor brown children who don't speak English can go to school? Or the whining about illegals using hospital services? You can call that attitude anything you want, but it ain't Christian.
I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics these "Privilege Protectors" have to do to still call themselves Christian.
I'm thrilled for you that you've found what you believe to be the only morally and intellectually defensible position possible on the matter, but I'm not yet seeing anything of substance to back up your accusation, just a premise I find highly questionable ("creates" vast inequality?) and still more anger. And since you've still not really answered any of my questions or engaged any points on which I've actually expressed a point of view, not just asked questions, this really has been a colossal waste of time. Hopefully all the vitriol-spewing has made you feel better, but I can't honestly say I believe the discussion, or my understanding, has been advanced any. "Privilege Protectors", eh? Do you still insist you don't namecall, or have you yet to look up "disingenuous" in the dictionary? Richard
A book recommendation for you.
So, you have not answered the spirit of my question. I phrased it to imply that you do not have an easy solution, you will not stop your 9-to-5 job and work 12 hours per day in a produce garden, and at no point will those coming to your door have any resources to offer to the situation 1.) I didn't say that I had an easy solution. I said only that I had the beginnings of a solution.
2.)And I do not think that those who would come to my door, though starving, would be helpless. Nor do I believe that there aren't resources that they/we could tap into such as tending our plot at the community garden which yields a great deal of produce in six months -- easily enough for a dozen people to harvest, eat, and can. We could also tap into the free food boxes that my church gives away. Neither my children nor their children would starve.
Franklin Evans, I think you are annoyed because you do not believe that it is possible to give a little bit more than you realistically can give without suffering a great deal. I'm saying that this kind of giving is the only kind of giving that will benefit ourselves (spiritually) and the poor (materially). 3.) If all Christians lived according to the teachings of Christ, then there would not be a problem with 24 people coming the following week, because the believers in my apartment complex would have their backs. And if 100 people came next week, then the rest of the block would have theirs, and so on, and so on. The hard part would be to get us Christians to actually practice what we preach.
TV, I don't know what to say to you at this point. One thing is clear, and I respectfully challenge you to offer a solution to it: a sovereign nation has every right to define and defend it boundaries, that judgment of right being totally subjective at its inception, and subject to every external influence and pressure capable of affecting it at its implementation. Take Taiwan as an example, or any national unit that is claimed by another, in whole or in part. Kurdistan is perhaps a better example. Kosovo recently joined the list. At no point does a nation set its boundaries and their protection with humane caveats. Nations have only practical motivations. Ideals have no place in the conduct of national interests. That is the reality with which we are faced concerning our boundary with Mexico. Your principles are sound, but how you express them is not (that being a neutral agreement with Richard's use of disingenuous here). There are no moneyed whites headed for gated communities involved here. There is an elected elite, from and including the POTUS right down to the state legislators. While some of them fit your pejorative, even they are not motivated from that. They are, rightly so, representative of cold, harsh, practical interests. That they can fit humanitarian ideals in there sometimes is a testament to our form of government. I think you expect too much of them to do much better than that.
Elmo, I admire your persistence, even while maintaining my cynicism. I truly hope you have the chance to prove me wrong. I love gardening, and have been away from it for far too long. I used to keep my family in salads and vegetables for six months out of every year, starting when I was 10 years old. It was my garden, and I was proud of my work and harvest. That was on the original homestead of a Wm. Penn charter farm. The soil had been resting for over a century. Anyway, if I were your neighbor, I'd grab a hoe. :)
a sovereign nation has every right to define and defend it boundaries, that judgment of right being totally subjective at its inception, and subject to every external influence and pressure capable of affecting it at its implementation. I'll bite, Franklin, by saying that such an ideal may have worked when we all had separate interests. It's not thee same world anymore. There is nothing remaining of heterogeneous national identity because the consumer monoculture has swallowed them up. Everyone on the planet is either in the process of participating in the monoculture, or they're in the process of fighting the encroachment of the monoculture on the remnants of their nation. How do we reconcile that the vast majority of the world works to support the privilege of the West and still claim that we're separate nations? Nations have only practical motivations. Ideals have no place in the conduct of national interests. Respectfully, that's not factual. Ideals are what national interests are based on. "The free market" is an ideal. Would you say that the free market has no place in the conduct of national interests? There are no moneyed whites headed for gated communities involved here. Then who exactly wrote the letter Rod posted?
I want to point out something, and I promise to be on my best behavior... Richard disagreed with the assertion that the position described in the letter Rod posted is immoral by virtue of it's sheer self-centeredness. As a relativist, I can only assert this using the standards these folks have set up for themselves, namely, the religion 75% of them or more claim. (That he's a friend of Rod's makes it that much more likely that the writer is a Christian, as that's one of the min circles in which Rod operates.) In every citation in that letter save 2, the writer is making some comment (I would call it whining, but that is apparently a perjorative reserved for liberals in these here parts, so I'll concede to "making some comment") about the cessation of his privilege. 1) an elementary school where non-English speaking children go. 2) Having to look at apartment complexes that are not manicured up to his standards 3) The lowering of his property values 4) Having to - what, acknowledge the existence of? - a bus station that caters to people of Mexican descent who are day-laborers. He states that speaking about these objectives has become difficult because people label him a racist. Now, Richard has a problem with the "name calling" labelling this position that of a "privilege protector." I don't see any other reason for this man's angst other than 1) Poor people are moving into his neighborhood and are causing him discomfort and 2) he doesn't appreciate being labelled a racist (no matter what validity the charge may have, he balks at the label). I think his main objection, if it is not one of race, and I am willing to concede that it is not, can only be one based on class and position. Those people do not belong "here," because "here" is where people like *him* live, and those are *not* people like him. Richard, I am not, in this missive, expanding that net to encompass every human in Christendom. Let's talk about *that guy.* Is *that guy's letter* representative of a "Christian" position?
Is *that guy's letter* representative of a "Christian" position? ~tv: I'd say it is indicative of a "Christian" position, but not a position of one who is a disciple of Jesus Christ.
~tv: You want to talk about "that guy," fine. In every citation in that letter save 2, the writer is making some comment...about the cessation of his privilege. Let's test this assertion. What are you if you complain about your city putting a day labor site in your neighborhood? We'll come back to this. Skipping #2 since you've already conceded that isn't what this is about... What are you if you complain about the local elementary school being overwhelmed with non-English speaking students who are the children of illegals using the day labor site? "Children of illegals" being the key qualifier, it fails. What are you if you complain about the squalid apartment complexes near the day labor site that now house illegals using the day labor site? "Housing illegals" being the key point, it fails. What are you if you complain about the increase in public drunkeness and drug dealing around the apartment complexes near the day labor site? Public drunkenness and drug dealing being illegal, it fails. What are you if you complain about the lowering of your property values because of the day labor site? We'll come back to this. What are you if you complain about the illegal bus station next to the day labor site that brings people from Mexico? The primary qualifier regarding the bus station being "illegal," it fails. Revisiting the other two, it's clear that the day labor site is supported by illegal activity and his property values are lowered by illegal activity. Which brings us to the last one: What are you if you complain about all of the above, give up, sell your home for a loss, and move to the suburbs? So, he's complained about illegal behavior and those responsible for enforcement have done nothing. I think this fails, too. I don't see whining about cessation of privilege. I see legitimate complaints that the law has gone unenforced, and that those following the law are being negatively impacted as a result. Convince me that's not the case. Richard
~tv: Whether the majority of his complaints center around loss of privilege depends how charitably you read his letter. For example, his complaint about non-English speaking students _could_ be motivated by simply not liking "those people", or it could be based on declining educational quality due to the school no longer being able to handle the demands put on it. Similarly, his complaints about the day labor site and bus station may not be about their bare existence, but rather about the things they in turn cause (violent crime, drug deals, public drunkenness, etc.). If that's the case I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that he is just a moneyed white trying to keep the poor brown people down. The writer might be all those things but this letter doesn't supply enough evidence to warrant that conclusion. sl
Convince me that's not the case. Easy. Aside from the public drunkenness, how does the gentleman in question know that there's anything at all illegal about those people? In every case where you state "it fails," you do so because "that guy" is talking about "illegals..." In every one of those cases, he's making an ssumption based on - what, if not race? Linguisitc capability? Cleanliness of front yard? The fact that they take the bus to work? That they are day-laborers? Here's one that'll bake your noodle: If his assessment of those people as "illegal," aside form public drunkenness, which there's PLENTY of amongst the native-born citizenry, my assertion holds a lot more water than you're giving it credit for.
Pardon me a moment... If his assessment of those people as "illegal," aside from public drunkenness, (which there's PLENTY of amongst the native-born citizenry) is wrong, my assertion holds a lot more water than you're giving it credit for. Add a couple words and some parentheses, and that says what I meant it to. Thanks :)
In other words, you are making assumptions regarding how suspiciously we should read his account that I am not willing to make, and I am making assumptions regarding how charitably we should read his account that you are not willing to make. Those assumptions being a function of worldview and fundamental beliefs, meaning I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me, I guess that's the end of that. Not much I can do beyond repost the following: I'm asking these questions the way that I am because, frankly, I'm baffled by what's being discussed. On the one hand, I do not believe in the least that the best way to deal with genuinely desperate people is to shove a gun in their faces. On the other hand, I believe that people who are here illegally do not deserve the same treatment as those who are here legally. On still the other hand (I hear the strains of Fiddler on the Roof coming up), one thing that is clear is that everybody has a short-term financial interest in the system remaining broken, including me and everyone else posting here, which is why it won't be fixed anytime soon. This discussion, as much sturm und drang as has decorated it, has not managed to advance my understanding of the matter one whit. Richard
The author of that letter is not a Christian. I know him personally.
Tv, I wrote: Nations have only practical motivations. Ideals have no place in the conduct of national interests. Respectfully, that's not factual. Ideals are what national interests are based on. "The free market" is an ideal. Would you say that the free market has no place in the conduct of national interests? My point remains true. The economic practices of a nation, their policies, the controls the enact and enforce, all have one practical goal (please tell me you don't need me to spell that out). Whether they call it "free market", "Mao's holy writ", or anything else, is how they sell it to the masses. As further illustration: think of the practical goals of the US in Iraq, and think of what ideals the Bush administration cooked up to sell it. Even better, think of what it took for the US to enter WWII, and what they did at home to keep the war supported financially and materially. You don't get the kids to put their lives on the line for oil, trade and treaties. The kids who wise up about the practical reasons either buy those with eyes wide open, or they follow orders, retire, and publish scathing criticisms of their former commander-in-chief.
Those assumptions being a function of worldview and fundamental beliefs, meaning I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me, I guess that's the end of that. Guess so. Re: your repost; That pretty much sums it up. The laws aren't being enforced and short of vigilante action, there's nothing shmoes like you and I are going to do about the presence of "those people." So how do we live together?
If not speaking English is such a problem, could we make affordable English education available to everyone that can't speak it? If the neighborhoods are gross and disgusting because too many people are living in such a small area, can we demand that employers pay a living wage so a single family dwelling only houses a single family? Free or low-cost language education would afford everyone involved a lot more dignity, as we'd be able to communicate. A healthy economic situation would probably eliminate much of the drug, alcohol and violence problem, too. There's just so many more compassionate ways of dealing with the problem than giving up and leaving or throwing desperate people back into the poverty they risked everything to escape. What's the country going to look like in 50 years if the current model holds sway? How would the country look in 50 years if we actually came at it as a human and not an economic problem?
Franklin, I see what you're saying.
Tv, Thanks. The answer to your question could we make affordable English education available to everyone that can't speak it[?] exists... or it did when I was growing up. It's called neighbors. In my years from K to 12, I personally contributed to the English language skill acquisition of Italian, Greek and Irish* immigrants, many of whom spoke with such heavy accents that they made my parents sound like native speakers (which they certainly were not). Doesn't seem to happen much any more. I'll stop there before my cynicism prompts me to write yet another long tirade that most won't read. * I never did hear the end of the debate about whether the Irish are actually speaking English when they speak English. ;)
Doesn't seem to happen much any more. I'll stop there before my cynicism prompts me to write yet another long tirade that most won't read. I know that tirade, though my version wouldn't be as, how shall we say? Diplomatic - as your version would be. ;)
TV, you made me laugh. Thank you. :) ... and yours would be a heck of alot shorter than mine, eh?
I never did hear the end of the debate about whether the Irish are actually speaking English when they speak English. As an Irish (from Dublin, not Irish-American) acquaintance of mine once said, "The English gave us their language, but we're the ones who f***in' taught them how to use it!" ;-)
I haven't been able to get into the comboxes for a while, so this is a bit tardy. TV and Franklin, I should have pointed out that, while I homeschooled my children, this is not really an "abandonment" of the public schools. They still get my tax money. And I'll still hope that wise and decent people will take that money and do good things with it. But as I said, my children have one childhood and one adolescence... I wasn't even thinking about the safety issue as a reason for homeschooling them, by the way. I just thought my wife (especially) and I could do an overall better job than the schools would, of preparing them to be decent and wise people, with God's help.
I'm glad to accept your correction of my impression, Major.
Yeah - thanks for the clarification, Major.
Rod, Do you ever ask yourself why you have more pagans and various flavors of lefties on your site than conservs? A little...ah...food for thought there.
Do you ever ask yourself why you have more pagans and various flavors of lefties on your site than conservs? While I would question your deep and meaningful statistical analysis of the circumstance (heh), I'd say it's because Rod welcomes people of all stripes to discuss the ideas he puts forward. I'm sure that appears to be some variety of appeasement to those more familiar with the Teutonic flavor of most conservative blogs, but if you're implying that Rod is some sort of closet lib, you obviously haven't hung around here much.
You don't get the kids to put their lives on the line for oil, trade and treaties. The kids who wise up about the practical reasons either buy those with eyes wide open, or they follow orders, retire, and publish scathing criticisms of their former commander-in-chief. Franklin Evans | Homepage | 05.23.07 - 8:39 pm | #
That's not why we fight. We fight to keep one another alive. Forget the politics and the patriotism and the power plays. None of it matters in the least when you know one of your guys is currently being fired on.
AB, I certainly do not mean to argue your rebuttal, but I think we are talking about different things here. What keeps you sane in a combat theater? I think that is the question you just answered. It's a damn important question, and the better your answer, the better your chances of staying alive. But my statement implies a different question. What makes you decide to stay in a combat theater, go out on daily patrol or saddle up when called to join an active fire fight? I think "I'm following orders" is a good answer, but it's not all of it. You volunteered to do a job. You went through rigorous training. You passed tests of endurance, but also of commitment and responsibility. You are not just a soldier... The part that comes next, your personal statement of who you are and why you are there, that's the part that tells you and us what ideals you hold to in the face of death and pain. It's not, ever, oil or politics or any of that. It's something in your heart. So, all of that is in part my confession of cynicism in my initial statement about practical motivations and "selling" high ideals. Not that it wasn't obvious to you, but another part that you may not have considered is this: if you and I didn't share at least some of those ideals, you wouldn't have volunteered, and I wouldn't care if you did. Your expression of patriotism is being a soldier; mine is fulfilling my responsibility to make sure the practical reasons match the ideals, at least a little bit. You are not the target of that cynicism; I am, and our leaders are. We have both, to some extent, failed you.
"I'll bite, Franklin, by saying that such an ideal may have worked when we all had separate interests .." I believe this points out that the sanctity of sovereignty is truly relative (actually borders are too) and especially in the "conservative" mind. Iraq comes to mind, Indian reservations come to mind (how many supported Indian gaming?) Vietnam? Venezuela?
US Sovereignty is the only sovereignty that should never be relative, of course. Then, if the US sovereignty alone is front and center, should there be included in all this US sovereignty the sovereign right to decide to treat migrants and refugees with some humanity?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.