AN EXCELLENT DISCUSSION OF THE ETHICS OF IMMIGRATION

customs and immigrationWhen I reference newspapers I usually do so to cite the facts they contain, not the opinions they put forth, but here is an exception.

SPERO: Compassion for the ‘stranger’ can’t outweigh the nation’s best interests

Some in religious circles are invoking the Biblical verse “Thou shalt not afflict the stranger” as justification for awarding illegal immigrants a full basket of ongoing social services, as well as a “fast track to citizenship,” which others think is but a euphemism for amnesty.

In all matters, the Bible teaches discernment, and there is a distinct difference between not afflicting another and requiring that we subsidize an entire life, especially when the burden of that support falls on the shoulders of already overtaxed families, themselves not beneficiaries of such “entitlements.” Basic respect and kindness is one thing — it is a sign of our humanity; onerous sacrifice and national bankruptcy is a quite another.

The Bible’s primary interest in this matter is a moral one: We all start out as children of God and should thus be treated with civility. In contrast to the biblical community, many ancient societies viewed strangers as fair game to be robbed, incarcerated or as fodder for harsh sport and brutality. This, the Bible points out, was the way of Sodom. Even today there are cultures and nations where “infidels” and strangers are oppressed and treated as subhuman. (continued here)

What Rabbi Aryeh Spero does in his article is provide a simple explanation of why we have a right and an obligation to control our borders.

Note that when I clicked on the rabbi’s website, my virus scanner complained about possible malware. I think that was a false report. When I googled caucusforamerica.com, I did not find any malware issues, and this report says caucusforamerica.com is okay. I visited the site without any apparent problems. Who knows why someone wants to blacklist it?

Anyway, here is a simple question for those demanding some form of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Are you ready to solve the long term problem by ending the welfare state, the subsidies that taxpayers pay for the “privilege” of attracting millions of new welfare recipients to our nation? No? Then they it appears you just want to flood the country with people who want to vote themselves entitlements. So what is the point of paying any attention to you? Is national suicide a rational option?

About these ads

About Citizen Tom

I am just an average citizen interested in promoting informed participation in the political process.
This entry was posted in Culture War, history, immigration, Information Warfare, Laws, Philosophy and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to AN EXCELLENT DISCUSSION OF THE ETHICS OF IMMIGRATION

  1. scout says:

    I suspect that if the question truly is whether “national suicide is a rational option” one would find great support for the idea that, no it is not. But is that really the question when we discuss immigration policy. The country has always benefitted hugely from the influx of immigrants and must be competitive for immigrants as we go forward in this century. Part of our policy has to be to ensure that the United States continues to be a mecca for immigration, as it has in the past. This is a significant component of our national strength.

    The devil is in the details, of course. We want immigrants in certain skill sets, ranging from the menial to the most demanding and ethereal. We need different numbers of immigrants across these different ranges of abilities. We don’t need as many brain surgeons or particle physicists as we need fruit picker, but we want the best of each category and everything in between. And, of course, we want these people to come to us through regular channels, not to surge around the mechanisms put in place to protect us from terrorists and criminals.

    So, immigration reform means establishing processes that encourage lawful immigration to the maximum extent feasible, making immigration user friendly (which has the desirable by-product of making illegal immigration unnecessary) and that prevents the United States from being seen as a place where the best and the brightest and the most industrious cannot come and build on their own dreams.

    • Citizen Tom says:

      Need I remind you that in the past, when this nation was being formed, our government did not give immigrants anything. New arrivals either figured out how to make a living here or they went back where they came from. Quite a few, by the way, did go back where they came.

      As it is, we now have a system that robs taxpayers to give illegal immigrants a “free” ride on government services, starting with a free education. That is national suicide.

  2. scout says:

    Compared to most industrialized nations, our country is not particularly lavish with social benefits. Immigrants come here for work, not for benefits. Many of them leave countries where there are far more government relief programs than they can get here. This is particularly true of those who come illegally. They are eligible for virtually no benefits. We do have caselaw affirming that their children (even if they came here illegally) can have access to our public schools (a “benefit” that you do not hold in high regard), but that works to our benefit by preventing knots of ignorant, unassimilated people from accumulating in our communities. I don’t think if you took a poll of any decent sample size, people would equate educating a child with “national suicide.” I think you’re over-exciting yourself.

    • Citizen Tom says:

      I am not going to sorting out what illegal immigrants can get out of our welfare state in a comment. So I will just say I hold the cost of a “free” education in high regard, and I have noticed the additional cost it takes to educate “knots of ignorant, unassimilated people” and the added stress educating these children put on our schools.

      Unfortunately, certain wealthy people want the rest of us to subsidize their labor costs, thus rendering their capital assets more profitable. Hence, these unscrupulous people have effectively purchased the support of both Democrat and Republican politicians to twist our immigration laws into knots. And they use the same sophistry you are spouting to justify their shenadigans. While crying crocodile tears, they profit at taxpayer expense.

      If you want to fund a charity, would you mind using your own money? Is that too much to ask? Given your responses, apparently it is.

  3. scout says:

    No, it’s not too much to ask. I do it all the time. I hope you do too. Especially during the holiday season.

    However, I don’t see what that has to do with immigration policy. Although I certainly would not mind funding responsible charities that address immigrant issues.

Comments are closed.