What is it about the debate on immigration that lends itself to blatantly false claims.
Two come immediately to mind.
1. The existence of a “Muslim ban”, I’ve asked in vain for evidence of this alleged ban, yet those questions have gone unanswered for months.
2. The existence of a “closed border policy”, I’ve asked for evidence that there is anyone advocating for this, and shockingly, gotten no answer.
I guess it’s more about pushing a narrative, rather than speaking the truth.
PS, it appears that the whole DACA excuse for the shutdown was just that. A cynical ploy to exert leverage in January using something that doesn’t end until March.
Truth is clearly a casualty here.
Saturday, January 20, 2018
Friday, January 19, 2018
That's what I thought
I've noticed a trend over the last few years among some on the progressive christian side of things, and it goes like this.
The speaker or author will continually express thoughts that lead those who hear or read them to reach certain conclusions based on what they say ot write. For example, someone might spend years explaining how everyone is saved, yet people refer to them as a "universalist", they deny it. This charade goes on for months or years until one day, they finally admit their universalism.
It makes me wonder why people just aren't honest about their beliefs and don't just admit that their readers and listeners have correctly characterized their position correctly, and that they've been either unwilling to admit the reality or that they've been dishonest about their beliefs. If you are going to advocate for a position, just own your position and take the heat.
The speaker or author will continually express thoughts that lead those who hear or read them to reach certain conclusions based on what they say ot write. For example, someone might spend years explaining how everyone is saved, yet people refer to them as a "universalist", they deny it. This charade goes on for months or years until one day, they finally admit their universalism.
It makes me wonder why people just aren't honest about their beliefs and don't just admit that their readers and listeners have correctly characterized their position correctly, and that they've been either unwilling to admit the reality or that they've been dishonest about their beliefs. If you are going to advocate for a position, just own your position and take the heat.
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
Immigrants
It seems as though we're seeing a trend on the anti-Trump side of things to equate country of origin with race. In effect, if you are from X country, then you must be Y race.
While this may have some degree of truth, it's not really a worthwhile conclusion in the context of immigration policy.
What Trump seems to be saying is that we need to eliminate the current country based quota system in favor of a system that prioritizes other factors.
The problem, as I see it, boils down to this. If you are in favor of the country based quota system, and if you are arguing that country of origin equals race, then you are essentially arguing for a race based/racist system. Personally, I fail to see how basing anything of value on one's race is helpful in any way.
To my mind, there are four broad categories of immigrants.
1. Refugees, these are people who are motivated by humanitarian issues, be they persecution, war, famine, natural disaster etc. Like the guy I know who was forced to leave Africa because some members of the religion of peace decided to kill him for apostasy. These cases should be decided on a case by case basis and be unrelated to anything but alleviating suffering. The refugee status should also not necessarily be premanant.
2. Immigrants who add value to the US. These are people who bring specific skills, educations, or qualifications to the table and who should be evaluated based on the need for those skills and talents.
3. Those who are simply seeking undefined opportunity. This category is pretty broad and undefined, but should take into account the ability of the immigrants to (eventually) support themselves and their willingness to assimilate. There should most likely be some sort of cap on the total per year, but this shouldn't take race or country of origin into account.
4. Those who seek to immigrate for nefarious purposes.
The common factor is that we should move away from these race based (country ot origin) quotas and towards a system that is focused on individuals and case by case approval.
While I understand the necessity and desirability of immigration. The fact is that unless the skilled, motivated, high level people are willing to stay and work for the betterment of their country of origin, then those countries are going to continue to decline. Which doesn't really help anyone. Why shouldn't the goal of US (and the rest of the world) be to strengthen and improve the situation in these countries that will allow the people to be safe and successful where they're from? Wouldn't a stable, strong, responsible Haiti be in the best interests of Haitians as well as with the rest of the world?
I was talking to a young Haitian ophthalmologist once, and I asked him why he didn't join his family members in the US and pursue his studies and practice there where it would be more lucrative and easier. His response, "I'm Haitian.". He is the kind of people that these thrid world countries need to keep, because they're the hope of better things.
As long as we keep focusing on the symptoms, we'll never cure the disease.
While this may have some degree of truth, it's not really a worthwhile conclusion in the context of immigration policy.
What Trump seems to be saying is that we need to eliminate the current country based quota system in favor of a system that prioritizes other factors.
The problem, as I see it, boils down to this. If you are in favor of the country based quota system, and if you are arguing that country of origin equals race, then you are essentially arguing for a race based/racist system. Personally, I fail to see how basing anything of value on one's race is helpful in any way.
To my mind, there are four broad categories of immigrants.
1. Refugees, these are people who are motivated by humanitarian issues, be they persecution, war, famine, natural disaster etc. Like the guy I know who was forced to leave Africa because some members of the religion of peace decided to kill him for apostasy. These cases should be decided on a case by case basis and be unrelated to anything but alleviating suffering. The refugee status should also not necessarily be premanant.
2. Immigrants who add value to the US. These are people who bring specific skills, educations, or qualifications to the table and who should be evaluated based on the need for those skills and talents.
3. Those who are simply seeking undefined opportunity. This category is pretty broad and undefined, but should take into account the ability of the immigrants to (eventually) support themselves and their willingness to assimilate. There should most likely be some sort of cap on the total per year, but this shouldn't take race or country of origin into account.
4. Those who seek to immigrate for nefarious purposes.
The common factor is that we should move away from these race based (country ot origin) quotas and towards a system that is focused on individuals and case by case approval.
While I understand the necessity and desirability of immigration. The fact is that unless the skilled, motivated, high level people are willing to stay and work for the betterment of their country of origin, then those countries are going to continue to decline. Which doesn't really help anyone. Why shouldn't the goal of US (and the rest of the world) be to strengthen and improve the situation in these countries that will allow the people to be safe and successful where they're from? Wouldn't a stable, strong, responsible Haiti be in the best interests of Haitians as well as with the rest of the world?
I was talking to a young Haitian ophthalmologist once, and I asked him why he didn't join his family members in the US and pursue his studies and practice there where it would be more lucrative and easier. His response, "I'm Haitian.". He is the kind of people that these thrid world countries need to keep, because they're the hope of better things.
As long as we keep focusing on the symptoms, we'll never cure the disease.
Convenience
One thing I’ve seen recently that deserves comment is how some self-described christians adopt the language of Orthodoxy when it’s convenient to make a political point. A couple of examples.
1. Seeing those who don’t believe in an Orthodox view of creation, those who place Darwin and Science above God when it comes to the subject of origins, all of a sudden embrace the idea that people are “created in the image of God”.
2. Seeing those who deny or minimize the concept of Jesus being God incarnate, jump all over the “God was born in a...”.
3. Seeing people try to separate MLK’s faith from his social activism, and who only give his heirs attention when they agree with certain political positions.
I spent the weekend with someone who blows away many of the stereotypes about how African Americans view many of the hot political topics of the day. I guarantee that if I was to attribute many of her comments to a white person, the comments would be labeled racist. Certainly her view of scripture would draw fire from many self-identified christians.
Finally, to those who make demands while refusing to live by the standards you demand of others, your actions undermine your words.
1. Seeing those who don’t believe in an Orthodox view of creation, those who place Darwin and Science above God when it comes to the subject of origins, all of a sudden embrace the idea that people are “created in the image of God”.
2. Seeing those who deny or minimize the concept of Jesus being God incarnate, jump all over the “God was born in a...”.
3. Seeing people try to separate MLK’s faith from his social activism, and who only give his heirs attention when they agree with certain political positions.
I spent the weekend with someone who blows away many of the stereotypes about how African Americans view many of the hot political topics of the day. I guarantee that if I was to attribute many of her comments to a white person, the comments would be labeled racist. Certainly her view of scripture would draw fire from many self-identified christians.
Finally, to those who make demands while refusing to live by the standards you demand of others, your actions undermine your words.
Thursday, January 4, 2018
November 10, 2017
Back on November 10, Dan made some unsupported claims about a “Muslim Ban”. At that time I asked him a series of questions designed to ascertain his understanding of current immigration law. At that time he chose to abandon that thread ( some might draw other conclusions), and to avoid answering the questions asked. I think we now know why.
Tuesday, January 2, 2018
The Utah senate race
I would like to get on this train early, so I’m calling for Mia Love to replace Orrin Hatch as the US senator from Utah. I’d much rather see a relatively new fresh face in that role than Mitt Romney.
But that’s just me.
But that’s just me.
I wonder
I wonder if the anti-Trump crowd can support him in his position on the resistance in Iran?
I wonder if the anti-Trump crowd can admit that the increasing number of companies who are raising wages, giving bonuses, and promising billions of dollars of spending, is an objectively good thing for their employees and the economy?
I wonder if the anti/Trump crowd can acknowledge the objective facts regarding the continuously improving economy?
I wonder if the anti-Trump crowd can acknowledge that the actions of this administration have contributed to the economic growth?
The reason I wonder these things, is that for all the negative things that happened during the P-BO years, even his detractors were able to acknowledge the fact that positive things happened.
I wonder if the anti-Trump crowd can admit that the increasing number of companies who are raising wages, giving bonuses, and promising billions of dollars of spending, is an objectively good thing for their employees and the economy?
I wonder if the anti/Trump crowd can acknowledge the objective facts regarding the continuously improving economy?
I wonder if the anti-Trump crowd can acknowledge that the actions of this administration have contributed to the economic growth?
The reason I wonder these things, is that for all the negative things that happened during the P-BO years, even his detractors were able to acknowledge the fact that positive things happened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)