The Immigration Conundrum

gp2.0

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 10:28 pm

Squishy wrote:

Communism doesn't work. You can't divide all the world's resources up on a per capita basis. Everyone suffers.There is the inevitable redistribution because there are people who are stronger, smarter, luckier, harder working, etc.

Maybe I am entitled to more because of decisions made by my ancestors. By the same token, I am entitled to provide for my descendents. If there were some reset button upon ones death, and people couldn't provide for their own families then they would be less productive.

Nations exist to protect valuable resources. People in my nation except for liberals don't want to divide the resources of 318,000,000 by 7,500,000,000. The rich liberals are not giving up their fortunes, and the immigrants who they are partnering with have their own selfish agenda.

The proof is the one third of Spanish immigrants who voted for Trump. Just like native born Americans, they want to protect what is theirs.

Ehh. Unless you talk to individuals, you have no idea why they voted for Trump. I spoke to a Latino woman who told me that while she can't stomach voting for Trump because of how crass he is, she was tempted because of the private school vouchers he promised. Many Latinos in my community send their children to expensive private Christian schools.

youngishbear

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 10:40 pm

sushilover wrote:

Taking religious philosophy out of the equation, almost everything in the world is determined by luck. My parents, my skills, my education, my health, my nationality could have theoretically all been different if not for my "luck" of being born in the exact circumstances I was born in.
If I was lucky enough to inherit a nice house, then my neighbor can't claim ownership just because I didn't work for it or 'deserve' it any way.

What I mean by possession is nine tenths, is that unless evidence is given that I got that house through illegal or underhand means, it is assumed that I am the rightful owner. I don't have to prove that I deserve it more than my neighbor. I may have lucked into the home, but it is still mine.

Unfair? Probably. Unjust? No.

And you feel no moral imperative to use your good fortune to improve the lives of those less fortunate?

Last edited by youngishbear on Mon, Jan 30 2017, 11:33 pm; edited 1 time in total

33055

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 11:28 pm

gp2.0 wrote:

It's the economy, stupid.

46% of the Latinos identified the economy as the most important issue. 20% said terrorism. 19% said immigration and 13% said foreign policy.

In other words two thirds clearly had their own interests as the number one issue. They want to protect what is theirs.

http://www.haaretz.com/world-n.....52911

amother

Jetblack

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 12:11 am

Squishy wrote:

Can a lower federal court impose a nation-wide stay on a president's executive order, and the government's only recourse is to appeal?

What if there was confirmed, accurate knowledge that one of those people had come to commit an already-planned terrorist attack and had a history of same? Or maybe they would let him in and then arrest him?

I'm trying to wrap my mind around this.

moonstone

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 12:39 am

youngishbear wrote:

And you feel no moral imperative to use your good fortune to improve the lives of those less fortunate?

I do that by giving tzedakah and volunteering. You have no right to dictate to me or anyone else how to help people. I don't feel responsible for every single person in the world less fortunate than me, no. And I don't think anyone needs to do "a good deed" that could have deadly ramifications. What's the weather like up on your high horse?

FranticFrummie

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 1:03 am

wondergirl wrote:

Op, I think your daughter might appreciate this article-- http://www.dailywire.com/news/.....apiro

She's more of a Milo, Blaire White, Andrew Klavan kind of girl. Wink

She also likes That Black Guy, and Patty Patriot. Hotep is a little over her head right now, but she really enjoys The ZoLoft, too. If you haven't heard of some of these, they're worth checking out.

We talk all the time about how much blessing we have from Hashem, how grateful we are, and about the importance of tzedakah. There's a reason why the rules of tzedakah state that you give to your neighbor first, then your community, and THEN worry about the rest of the world. Do you think the Torah is protectionist and selfish? (CVS)

If you are one of the lucky ones, and you know that the next town over is a Jewish family who is struggling to feed their kids and keep the heat on in winter, do you feel OK with giving your money to a Muslim who lives across the globe?

If you personally are having a hard time financially, and your shul says that there is no chessed money available to help you out, how does it make you feel to know that people want to support a flood of new immigrants?

ora_43

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 4:27 am

WhatFor wrote:

Can you explain the philosophy underlying your assertion that you are entitled to more on the basis of luck? I'm not sure what you mean by "possession is nine/tenths of law" and how that explains why someone is inherently entitled to something more at birth.

I'm not asking for statements of law or how things are. I'm looking for an answer that satisfies the "why".

I wouldn't use the word "entitled," but I do think there's a solid basis for having borders and limiting immigration.

Similar to John Rawls' theory, for those familiar with that... Imagine that all of us were sitting around in a room, about to be assigned to a country of birth, and none of us knew what country we were going to be citizens of. And we had to come up with rules re: immigration and border control.

What rules would we come up with, with none of us knowing if we were going to be Canadian or Somali or Russian or... etc.

Obviously it's hard for me (or anyone) to know the answer to that. I do know what countries I have citizenship for, and that biases me.

But I think there would be general agreement on a few thing
- That countries must open their doors to legitimate refugees (after all, what if we're born Yazidi? or Sudani?)
- But don't necessarily have to grant them citizenship (what if we're born in Lebanon, and refugees would endanger our fragile political balance?).
- That countries should share the burden of absorbing refugees, with wealthier/more stable countries taking more of the burden.
- That no country is obligated to open its doors to everyone. (This would open any small country to having its unique culture and laws instantly erased, and would obviously be dangerous in wartime (imagine Israel opening the doors to all Egyptian citizens during the Yom Kippur war, for example).)
- That countries aren't obligated to take in civilians of an enemy nation in wartime. (see above).

Basically it has nothing to do with entitlement. It's more about the question of what rules do the most to protect everyone's interests.

33055

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 6:43 am

Most of the migrants in Germany are unemployable. There will be a multi- generational problem of supporting these folks. When there were prior waves of immigrants and refugees, they had to get up on their feet and support their families. Now there are disincentives to work. Children raised in welfare are 7 times more likely to take government handouts. Since the 60s, we have had intergenerational welfare dependency. Unproductive people are expensive and drain the economy. Once the initial feel good of helping refugees, we and our descendents pay for this. There is nothing wrong with learning the cost before we commit.

Besides the rape crisis in Sweden and Germany, they are faced with all the other crimes by migrants. By and large, they are not good citizens and don't integrate into the nation.

In the old days there were settlement houses and other organizations teaching our values and building a national identity. There is no such thing these days. The snowflakers would be cry in outrage. We used to have Americans of Irish (insert nationality) descent. These days we have Irish (again, insert nationality) living in the US.

The majority of Americans support the temporary travel ban and eventual vetting. It is only the crazies who promote civil unrest because our President is doing what the people want.

According to Fortune magazine only 63 migrants in Germany were hired by blue chip companies out of the more than a million migrants. Of those 50 were hired by Duetsche Post - the post office. They don't have work place skills.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/w.....s/amp

sushilover

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 9:41 am

youngishbear wrote:

And you feel no moral imperative to use your good fortune to improve the lives of those less fortunate?

Oh I absolutely do feel that charity is important. But let me be clear: my good fortune is legally mine even if I 'lucked' into it. And I should not have to put my family's lives at risk while helping.

(Of course from a religious perspective things change drastically, but national policy should be largely based on secular arguments)

youngishbear

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 9:51 am

sushilover wrote:

Again, I am not asking what you legally or religiously must do. I understand perfectly well why this is a complicated situation and that it is risky.

But do you at least wish you could help people who have less than you?
If it could be proven to you that something does not pose any risk to you or your family, would you be more willing to help?
What is your cutoff point for helping others at the expense of your comfort/security/safety?

I think that is part of the debate here. Should our (secular, moral, humanitarian) duty to our fellow human beings override our fear? Are those fears realistic? Are we doing enough to reduce the chance of danger?

ora_43

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 10:03 am

Squishy wrote:

Most of the migrants in Germany are unemployable. There will be a multi- generational problem of supporting these folks.

Most of the migrants who came LAST YEAR don't have work yet. That's hardly an indication of multi-generational unemployment in the making.

Many of those who aren't employed yet don't have their paperwork yet and have very limited job options because of that.

The first generation of immigrants from any country usually struggle and often end up in menial labor type jobs. Their kids have the language skills and education that the country's job market needs.

I'm not saying employment is a non-issue. But - perspective. The German analysts who suggested that refugees would immediately fill skilled-labor jobs were being overly optimistic. People who say that refugees will be perpetually unemployed are being overly pessimistic. Give them a couple years to learn German and see what happens.

Laiya

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 10:05 am

marina wrote:

Not mutually exclusive.

It's like WWII. Germany had to be stopped, but in the meantime pple hid the Jews and countries took them in.

Glad to agree on this.

It seems those on the left who are for more open borders, are also against the US involving itself in other countries' affairs militarily, which always seemed to me an inherent contradiction.

That was the reason we pulled out of Iraq too soon, and what ultimately led to this tragic situation.

moonstone

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 10:35 am

Squishy wrote:

I agree. This is just another excuse for the Trump-haters to put on yet another stupid demonstration. If The Great One Who May Never Be Criticized had done this, we wouldn't be hearing a peep.

sushilover

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 10:46 am

youngishbear wrote:

I do think that successful countries have a moral obligation to aid war torn areas. But like I said previously, we must make a cost benefit analysis even when our hearts break from their plight.

Quote:

Remember:
1) ISIS has openly declared that it will use the refugee programs to smuggle their members into our countries.
2) Refugees may undergo a year long vetting process, but members of the government ,including FBI director Comey , have said that our vetting process is inadequate. It doesn't matter how long the process is if we simply don't have enough information about the refugees.
3) Even the moderates of many of the banned countries do not share our values and integrate poorly. (I'm talking about 90% of middle eastern Muslims viewing Jews unfavorably. 29% of Muslims in Afghanistan believe that suicide bombing is justified.) This can have terrible long lasting effects on our country.

I'd also like to add that 13% of Muslims from these countries support ISIS. People are comparing this immigration ban to Jews being turned away before the holocaust. If 13% of European Jews supported the Nazis, the US would very well have been justified in turning them away.

I absolutely agree with Laiya that the best solution would have been to remain in Iraq for as long as we were needed until things stabilized. (It's a mistake to think that American style democracy could work in any culture. But they could have established a government that is at least not a danger to its own people. But I digress....)

JoyInTheMorning

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 10:46 am

Squishy wrote:

I also discussed this IRL.

No wonder tourism is down. Why does anyone want this in the US?

I also like that DT is going to publish the weekly statistics of illegal immigrant crime in the US. We need to make informed decisions rather than listen to the pap from the media.

Yay, publish the supposed crimes of immigrants! Just like Hitler published the stats of supposed Jewish criminals! Yay, let's go back to the good old days!

How can you possibly think this is a good idea?

JoyInTheMorning

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 10:56 am

FranticFrummie wrote:

13yo DD is becoming very politically aware these days. She may not be in school, but she's keeping on top of social studies!

Today she asked me about the "Muslim Ban".

I told her, what if there were 100 people in a country, where you were sure that they were going to die if they stayed there - but there was a good chance that one of those 100 was a secret terrorist? Is it worth the risk?

What if you let those 100 people in, and one actually was a terrorist. The terrorist goes on and stages an attack. You've let in 99 people and saved their lives, but the terrorist killed 100 people in the attack. Was it worth it?

What if the terrorist killed 200 people?

What if some of the people killed were your friends or family? Still worth it?

Think again of the 99 innocent lives you've saved, on the chance that none of them would be terrorists. Think of the repercussions. It's the Devil's Arithmetic, in a nutshell.

I have no answers. There are no easy answers. I'm glad that I'm not in the position to have to make those kinds of choices, and literally decide who lives and who dies. All I can do, is daven to Hashem to guide the hearts and minds of our leaders, and pray for the safety of the innocent, no matter where they come from.

No time to read the whole thread, so apologies if someone has already made this point:

Your arithmetic is off. It's not 1 in a 100 who are terrorists, more like 1 in 100,000. And all refugees go through a year-long vetting process. Meanwhile, there's no vetting process or restrictions for people from Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9-11 attackers came from.

Be honest and show your daughter this post.

33055

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 10:59 am

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Because we need information to counteract the hysteria on the left. No one is saying to make up statistics, but the truth must be told. Why hide it? We break down crime by demographics already so we know how to target our resources effectively.

Education and studies must be done to set policy. You can't operate a country blind. Only someone on the left wants to hide the truth. The folks on the right want to feel safe. If illegal immigrants are law abiding, then let the country know.

FranticFrummie

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 11:57 am

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Please read the whole thread before commenting. I discussed the arithmetic issue on page 4, but I'll recap it for you. Math is not DD's best subject. I used one in 100, because that's something she can easily visualize. We were talking about philosophy, not statistics.

Anyone who wants to argue statistical analysis, complete with charts, graphs, and citations, is free to start their own thread. Do not make me say this again!

DD and I have been going through this thread, discussing all of the pros and cons.

sushilover

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 12:03 pm

FranticFrummie wrote:

Sorry I realized that I, too posted statistics LOL

My apologies.

I'd love to hear what take your daughter ends up having on the whole issue. She sounds like an interesting and intellectual person! (Even if she comes to a different conclusion than I did, LOL) Are her friends interested in these issues as well?