Morality of Immigration/Borders
Morality of Immigration/Borders
P1: All human beings have equivalent moral value
P2: All human beings have inherent rights, among them
The right to life,
The right to use their effort, and talents to maximize
the value of their life as they define it, within the confines
of natural law.
P3. The opportunities, riches, and freedoms to maximize the value
of one’s life are not evenly distributed around the world.
P4. Political borders exist in the world
P5. Most/Many political borders are established and maintained by power.
P6. The purpose of boarders are to protect, and secure the government’s objectives
they enclose. These can be generally morally goods, or evils, or all between
Conclusion:
Human beings of equal moral value should be free to move about the world to maximize
The value of their lives, as they define it. This freedom should only be limited by the inherent
conflicts of similar freedoms in others. The nature of a particular political border may or may
not be a moral entity to the extent it is justly or unjustly resolving the issues of just conflicts of inherent human freedoms from the equivalent human beings it separates.
P1: All human beings have equivalent moral value
P2: All human beings have inherent rights, among them
The right to life,
The right to use their effort, and talents to maximize
the value of their life as they define it, within the confines
of natural law.
P3. The opportunities, riches, and freedoms to maximize the value
of one’s life are not evenly distributed around the world.
P4. Political borders exist in the world
P5. Most/Many political borders are established and maintained by power.
P6. The purpose of boarders are to protect, and secure the government’s objectives
they enclose. These can be generally morally goods, or evils, or all between
Conclusion:
Human beings of equal moral value should be free to move about the world to maximize
The value of their lives, as they define it. This freedom should only be limited by the inherent
conflicts of similar freedoms in others. The nature of a particular political border may or may
not be a moral entity to the extent it is justly or unjustly resolving the issues of just conflicts of inherent human freedoms from the equivalent human beings it separates.
Comments (129)
Should someone be permitted to move into my house and sleep in my bed? As one of God's children of equal worth, why should my bed be reserved for me and they be required to sleep somewhere less comfortable? Should they then sleep in my bed, what right do I have then to kick them out and sleep there because I now am being deprived? It seems we have to establish somewhere some set of rules of who gets what, which means we need to start drawing boundaries around things and rules that govern who can cross those boundaries.
Now take it a step further. If you concede that I have the right to the confines of my home and my neighbors theirs, then surely we are free to decide how to share the space between our lands that might be jointly owned. Maybe we will decide to build a park located between ten of our homes that will be shared equally among us and we might arrive at a democratic method for how our common park will be maintained. Does an outsider now have the right to invade our common space but not our home?
Thanks - that is the point I was trying to cover with:
Quoting Rank Amateur
When moral rights are in conflict a judgement needs to be made. To your point:
Quoting Hanover
My point is that the rules themselves may or may not be moral depending on how justly or unjustly they resolve the conflict.
Would it matter how you obtained the bed?
If you walked into some house with 15 of your favorite bikers and threw out the family that lived there, and then built a big fence around it, and made sure there were plenty of tough guys around in case anyone tried to enter. Is the bed morally yours now ?
Put it another way. If you could save someone's life, and the only thing you had to do for this would be to let them move into your house and permit them to sleep in your bed, what kind of fucking monster do you have to be to refuse???
Well, if they are at the shelter, then moving them into a slightly more comfortable spot isn't what's going to save their life.
And you know this is a false equivalence, and it's fucking hypocritical.
Also, aren't you Jewish? Don't you have a very vivid historical reason not to piss on the 1951 Refugee Act and the status of asylum seeker? Yeah... :worry:
What makes them equal morally? By nature, we establish certain people to be superior to each other via status in material terms, so what causes the moral law to be different? What causes us to be considered equal?
Supposing that we do indeed have freedom, what sets our boundaries? If a fellow human sets boundaries, does it count as an encroachment on the other's liberty?
It seems as if boundaries must be set by an authority figure that freedom may be maximized for the individual. Perhaps as a necessary evil, but necessary nonetheless.
The discussion was broad enough that it can be equivalent as you make it. In the context of Mexican immigration, it is equivalent. They are not refugees escaping torture or death in their homeland, but are looking for a more comfortable spot here in the US. That would make the analogy apt.
And on the other side of this, the homeless you've decided to describe are those that are slightly uncomfortable and will only receive something slightly better if housed with you. There are, though, homeless who are in desperate need of help that could be provided by you and that could save their life, yet you don't do it.
My point here isn't that you're a hypocrite for demanding that others offer aid to suffering immigrants while you allow similarly situated homeless people to suffer. Whether you're a hypocrite is irrelevant. What I challenge is the standard you imposed, which is that you claim it is highly immoral (i.e. you would be a "monster" for doing this) not to help all those in need who you could help. I don't accept that as a standard of morality because it requires an extreme altruism that is superhuman, not, as you suggest that those failing that degree of altruism are subhuman. I'm saying that it is moral to have more than an equal share of wealth and it is not required that you divide your fortunes, however humble, equally to those in need.
This isn't to say that a certain degree of charity isn't morally required, and I'd say most consider giving of one's self a requirement of being a good person, but there are limitations in what is expected of us. One standard often used among the religious in Western society is that of tithing, where 10% of one's wealth is offered as charity. That number is arbitrary to be sure, and I don't suggest it is the specific number that must be adhered to, but it does make the point that the how much question has been a point of issue for thousands of years. That is, we can be moral (and not be monsters) by limiting a distribution of our community resources by not opening up our borders to all comers, but by offering our charity in a limited, but still generous way.Quoting Akanthinos
This is an ad hom. If it is indeed hypocritical for me to reject immigrants today when my ancestors were immigrants (and that is a debatable hypothesis), then the best you could say is that I'm a hypocrite. Not wrong, just a hypocrite. This is just to point out that you're no longer debating, but just trying to be insulting.
At any rate, this is just a red herring by you, considering the immigration debate in the US is not over the refugee population of immigrants. The typical US immigrant is Mexican or Chinese and very few US immigrants are truly fleeing their nation of origin for fear of torture or death. If the US closed its borders to all but those who qualified under the refugee convention (which the US didn't enter into until 1967 by the way), immigration would be effectively shut down. If your position is that immigration be limited to only those who qualify as refugees, then your approach is indeed very conservative, and not in opposition to walls, increased border patrols, and other measures to contain the non-refugee immigration attempts.
Trying to defend that all human being are morally equal is like trying to defend that 2 + 2 = 4. However, that does not mean they are naturally equal, that they are different. Different concept.
Quoting Lone Wolf
Borders are arbitrary political lines, in the main acquired by and maintained by power. The issue I am asking is are these political lines moral, and my answer is, it is depended on their purpose and use.
for example:
A Honduran woman, with her 3 children are in real physical danger in their home, that they are innocent of the cause of. She packs up the kids, makes the trek through Mexico, crosses illegally into the US. They are captured and returned to the danger.
Questions are:
Who in the scenario has a higher moral purpose. A woman protecting her children, or a government protecting its border ?
Is there a lesser of evil argument? Could the government defend its action to prevent others to do likewise ?
It seems that on an individual basis, the actions of the government have lesser moral standing - can it be justified as a lesser evil than mass migration ?
So, you support open borders for Israel?
as above, my support for the morality of any nations border is its purpose and use. If the purpose or use is moral, the border is moral.
Not sure I understand all the issues on the Israel border to have an opinion based on subtleties. But in some degree of if a border exists to protect its inhabitants from real harm, the purpose becomes self defense, which is a morally acceptable action. This becomes more cloudy if the the people you are defending yourself from - have a moral claim to the land you are protecting.
If I steal your car, can I claim self defense as a morally acceptable reason to stop you from trying to get it back. And can you use any means at all to get it back?
So Israel, killing 100 Gazan protesters and maiming 14,000 with butterfly bullets is OK.
USA dealing with invaders lawfully is not.
Go figure.
"Power" does not exist as an abstraction. It resides in or through something real. "The government" is not a paper abstraction. It was established and maintained through the will of real people (citizens) who recognized common interests among themselves (the nation). "The people" have the right to establish and maintain national borders, through their sovereign national state.
Quoting Rank Amateur
It's a long way from Honduras to Texas. Before she arrived here, she imposed herself and her children upon Guatemala and Mexico. If she just wanted to get away from some local shit hole, she need not have traveled so far. She was aiming higher -- the Good Life in the United States. It is one thing to relieve abject suffering, another thing to fulfill high aspirations.
Most of the world's moving populations are economic migrants -- not refugees from tyranny. Economic migrants (of the sort that left Europe and re-populated North and South America over the objections of aboriginal populations), and millions of others today, can not make a claim of charity. They may arrive on this or that border disheveled, hungry, thirsty, chilled (or overheated), but their travel was not driven by the necessity of escaping persecution.
If this is so, then why don't the majority Buddhist Burmese people (Myanmar) have the right to discourage Moslem and Christen people from living there?
If the United States wants to maintain a majority European-descended population, why don't we have the right to do that?
If the Chinese Han people wish to discourage Moslems in their western provinces (and elsewhere), or Christian, why don't they have the right to do that?
Maximizing the value of lives in Bangladesh might not include Rohynga Moslems from Myanmar. And so on.
A world of "silos" closed to outsiders isn't my idea of a good arrangement, but neither is a world of fluid populations moving wherever they please.
the collective will of a people is no guarantee that the will is moral. That is a separate judgement.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That is just changing the hypothetical I proposed without making the moral judgement on the scenario I gave you.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Ok, make it economic. Is it moral, for a people with great opportunities , to draw a line, and use force to prevent other human beings from having the same opportunities ? Does it matter if the latter took those opportunities by force ?
not exactly sure how you got that, from this
Quoting Rank Amateur
True enough; nations may engage in actions which are not moral.
In this discussion, I am asserting that the creation and maintenance of nations for the benefit of its citizens is a moral action. Secure borders are part of the maintenance required to sustain the national life. Why? Because persons with immoral intent (spies, terrorists, illicit drug wholesalers, criminals fleeing prosecution, etc.) seek to cross borders. We may also block persons at the border who pose a health risk (are infectious with readily communicable and dangerous diseases, like Ebola, tuberculosis, multi-drug resistant STIs, etc.).
Limiting immigration (or emigration) may be necessary to protect the economy upon which a nation's people depend for their well-being. It may also be necessary to limit immigration of persons who have very limited ability to contribute productively to the economy of a nation (on which its people depend). For instance, persons who do not speak the language of the target nation or are illiterate, lack skills in modern technology, and so on may not be able to contribute to the economy in any significant way. There is a strong likelihood of a significant share becoming dependent on the people of the target nation. The same would apply to the seriously and chronically ill.
Quoting Rank Amateur
The problem of emigration/immigration is a world-wide problem affecting many nations. Some nations have greater resources, some have far lesser resources. 500,000 people moving from Burma to Bangladesh is a much greater problem for Bangladesh than 500,000 Mexicans moving into the United States. Columbians are not in a good position to absorb large number of migrants from Venezuela. Too many migrants may destabilize Columbia, which is of no benefit to anyone, particularly Columbians.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I would hold it not moral for one nation to seek the impoverishment of other nations for its own benefit. This has been the policy of various nations at various times, including the United States. Keeping other nations poor and backward (or unstable) may have a short term benefit, but can have very bad long-term consequences.
Central American states have been subject to a great deal of economic and military interference by the United States. It would be more moral for us to effectively aid Central American nations to rehabilitate and expand their societies and economies, than to drain them of their most promising citizens. So far, we have done little.
There are policies beyond open doors or impenetrable walls at the border.
This simplistic formulation could be applied to railroads in Germany during the Nazi era. If a given rail line was used to deliver Jews to Auschwitz, was it an "immoral rail line"? Was the engine that pulled the train an "immoral engine"?
A border is like a railroad: a construction that is essentially morally neutral. The right way to talk about Auschwitz is "policy". The Nazis established an immoral policy. It isn't the border that would be immoral; it is the policy for permissions to cross the border that would be subject to moral judgement.
Most nations permit persons to cross through and permanently remain within their borders under specific conditions. What seems to me problematic is when people demand to be admitted without any conditions when they are not fleeing persecution (such as Jews fleeing Nazi Germany). The U.S. can be seriously faulted for being very stingy with our admission quotas at that time, even turning away a whole ship of refugees (the German ship St. Louis).
Agree - lump it into a basket called safety and security - in the main would be a moral reason for a border.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Not sure I agree with very much of this, and not sure how much of this conventional wisdom based on any kind of fact. To the contrary, I can't of any immigrant group that this was not said about, and in the fullness of time was not look on as an asset to the country. Not sure there is any basis to think the current wave is any different.
no issue with that. Agree. maybe a touch semantic - but agree.
What is different is that we are witnessing this wave. We weren't around when Eastern Europeans arrived in New York City in 1897.
True -- people are often less than thrilled with new arrivals. In the US, the Irish, Italians, eastern Europeans, and Russian/Ukrainian Jews were met with considerable disdain. On the other hand, NW Europeans (Germans, British, and Scandinavians) received a friendlier reception.
What made for the difference?
One factor was the physical condition of the immigrants. The Irish generally left their homeland in physical and emotional distress, an they arrived in very large numbers (think Irish famine). The cities where they landed (like Boston and New York) weren't large enough to absorb them immediately, and there were no welfare and settlement programs capable of taking care of them, so their misery was on public display. In time they moved up and out-- like my great grandfather who a young guy in Minnesota in 1863. But it took decades for the Irish to become integrated into New York 'polite society'.
Italians and eastern Europeans immigrated in smaller numbers and weren't fleeing famine, and many of the Italian men, at least, did not intend to become permanent residents. Still, they were a new wave of immigration. Germans and British immigrants found well established communities here (since the pre-revolutionary war period). Jews arrived in large numbers, many fleeing persecution in Russia and Ukraine. The traditional dress of the often Orthodox Jews was noticeably different than what many other Americans were wearing, as were their political/food/religious/social habits. Whether migrants were from rural or urban cultures made a difference.
It actually doesn't take that much cultural difference for people to react negatively.
Minnesota now has a large population of Somalis. They arrived over a very short period of time as a result of State Department policy. Conservatively dressed Moslem women are still something of a novelty. People were more stunned than thrilled by their sudden arrival. None the less, they are integrating themselves. A Somali was elected to the Minneapolis City Council. The MN Historical Society has a Somali history show. They appear to be succeeding economically. Their mosques are rarely storefront operations now, but rather are more substantial religious buildings. It has taken... maybe 25-30 years. The Vietnamese community integrated very fast here, the Hmong people (Cambodians) much slower.
Mexicans, Cambodians, central Americans, Somalis, et al have spread out over the state, pretty much the way the Norwegians and Swedish did in the 19th century. The revitalizing benefit of immigration is most visible in dying rural Minnesota towns, and in dilapidated parts of urban Minnesota.
Gish gallop
Invaders? The hell are you on about.
And no, this is not lawful, as the Governor of New York explained in details. Besides violating the stated intent of the Flores decision, it also contravenes to the 1951 Refugee Act, which states that while countries may impose mouvement restrictions on asylum seekers for the aim of facilitating process, they cannot criminalize them, prosecute them, or even simply discourage them from seeking asylum.
Trump set himself up for another legal takedown.
No, they don't, that's absolute nonsense. A gangbanger, for example, does not have equivalent moral value to a normal human being who does no harm.
Perhaps you mean something like "spiritual value" or "value in the eyes of God" or something of that sort?
This what I was going for in P1.
All humans have an equal basic moral status. They possess the same fundamental rights, and the comparable interests of each person should count the same in calculations that determine social policy. Neither supposed racial differences, nor skin color, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, intelligence, nor any other differences among humans negate their fundamental equal worth and dignity.
???
https://speakingofresearch.com/2012/09/11/gish-gallop/
What you took as some sort of attempt at obfuscation was support for immigration. Yes, I am against open door immigration, but the point I was making was that once orderly admission has been gained, immigration generally benefits the destination countries. People initially resent new arrivals, but they get used to them, and eventually accept them.
Again, I completely disagree. There is no sense in which the interests of an impulsive, violent person can be treated as on the same level as the interests of someone who goes about their life thoughtfully, without doing harm. Society could not possibly function if that were taken seriously. The impulsive, violent person has less moral worth than the thoughtful, harmless person. They are of positive disvalue to humanity, to society, to those around them, etc., etc., and their interests are of less account (though under certain circumstances some of their interests may still be taken into account, see below - it's not like any human being, even the worst, is ever totally valueless, totally morally discountable).
There are two senses in which a kind of equality, in a sense, pertains to human beings, but neither of them have anything to do with morality (or rather, they aren't corollaries of the moral calculus per se).
1) The spiritual sense, as I mentioned. For Christians, for example, all human beings are "equal in the eyes of God", or for Jews, everyone is equally a "spark of the Divine." Most religious have something equivalent. In a secular context, that might be expressed in terms of "dignity", or proportionality, or in the expression of mercy and taking into account mitigating factors, or in the understanding that moral redemption may be possible for some. But this is DESPITE the obvious disparity in moral worth between people (it's something that under certain circumstances might override the normal moral calculus). And again, mercy and redemption are conditional on remorse being shown.
2) Equal treatment before the law. This is really a procedural function of how to go about ensuring social order: nobody gets any special privileges, everyone comes before the law as innocent until proven guilty, that sort of thing. There is a distal connection to morality here, in that, like every other human endeavour, the law must proceed morally (and prejudice is immoral). But it's not that the law is set up to enforce a particular view of morality. (This is a common mistake people make. The function of the law is not to promote morality, but to propagate social order; the connection with morality is simply that in doing so it must itself act within moral bounds.) And again, this proceeds DESPITE obvious moral differences.
It is difficult to see how you can justify saying some poor baby born in the Phillipines cannot move to Seattle to work if he or she wants to.
Too bad there is not some way to force that great red stain of shame from the heart of the land of liberty for their un-America choice to embrace the frustration of the freedom of others. Citizenship by embrace of an ideology is so much fairer.
It is such a tragedy that that great light of liberty in New York harbor is being extinguished and a wall intending to set up an exclusive gated community is replacing it as the symbol of America.
Doubly tragic becasue it will not in the slightest help economically and is in fact as damaging to supporters as critics. Those people who think they can bring back outmoded forms of work instead of competing are just fooling themselves. That "again" in "Make America great again" is a colossal mistake. We could have, were, in fact, moving to a better future, but now? Don't worry reds, you lack of education and employability will certainly be compensated for by stopping imigrants from competing with you. De-globalize the whole border and you will still be unemployed - and much, much poorer.
The only market in the world that is not globablized in name is the labor market. What we need is completely free markets and borders with labor and capital and we need people to associate by ideology and defend their borders that way. Citizenship by belief in freedom. Demonstrate you are against it and you should be deported from America.
So much treasure, blood, and lives down the drain. Even if we are often, no usually, hypocritical, the ideals of America, the land of the free, were something to behold. I have been travelling the world for about three decades and it was amazing how much hope I used to be greeted with and how much sympathy, as if I have had a death in the family, I am greeted with now.
Ah well, we always were hypocrites. Biological warfare against the indians because they were indians. Enslavement of blacks because they were black. Destruction of lives in South East Aisia because they were gooks. Destruction of innocent civilians because they were Tajihs. But now the population is shifting and the whites are scared...It's ok if "they" die just not ok if "we" die.
They have no hope of winning the way they are going. Greatness just doesn't come cheap.
We'll see how it all turns out.
The purpose of any government is to protect the people. Unfortunately, this is merely ideal and not always followed for many countries. Without the application of compassion and mercy, the woman and her children are encroaching on another person's property, as most land within many nations are privately owned and not government property. By removing the woman and children to place them back to their own country is actually more logical than offering refuge; as one cannot know the intents of all such immigrants, as many crossover with dishonorable intent. In order to protect citizens from potential harm, the government must remove such persons without regard to the woman and her children's situation.
In regards to the information available, as one cannot know the true intent, is it truly less moral to return a person back to the country of origins?
Quoting Rank Amateur
What gives one person a higher right than another? If one person is obligated to permit encroachment, then the same holds true for any other individual, including the woman and her children. The argument seems to stem from what the motivation of another is, and at that, subjective to the judger's system of morals. The solution to deeming what is truely right comes from the recognition of a law advanced above the human nature, a law indifferent to human interpretation. It is wrong for any government to persecute innocent people, but also wrong for a government to refuse its duties in protecting its people.
As I see the options - we can allow these people to enter the country as refugees seeking asylum and process their individual claims.
Or somehow - ultimately with force - prevent them from crossing the boarder.
I can not see how in anyway we as a nation can do the later and present ourselves in anyway as a moral force in the world any longer.
Crossing the boarder, and presenting yourself as a refugee seeking asylum is not an illegal act. Why would we try to prevent that ? We have laws and processes that address this - why would our President be unwilling to use them?
As a practical matter, national borders and a restriction on citizenship does help to preserve the workings of a nation, both in economic terms as well as cultural/political terms. I'm not a xenophobe, and recognize we are a land of immigrants, and I wish we had an easier path to citizenship for people already here, who are working and staying out of trouble, but, I don't see why just anyone should be allowed to enter the USA.
I do think as human beings we have certain inalienable rights - simply due to our humanness. One of those rights would be to improve the condition of my life within my capabilities.
The question is can an arbitrary line, in the main established and maintained by force - superseded what I say is a human's right to improve ones life within his/her's capabilities. I say no, i say there should be a doable, at least semi efficient process to evaluate immigrants and allow willing workers into the country.
I don't think there is any real evidence that taken on any kind of balance that immigration has been anything but a great positive for this country. If you want to continue to fund SS and Medicare in an aging economy - allow in younger workers.
Borders make lousy economic barriers -
by definition inalienable human rights are inalienable and by definition the right of all humans simple by being human - the argument comes on where the inalienable line is.
Perhaps this point should be more discussed here, as especially when the following P5. makes the argument that these borders are so artificial that the majority are only upheld by power...and hence without it would collapse.
First and foremost, borders are an idea we share.
Naturally borders define a nation (typically a nation-state) and hence borders are engrained in the whole idea of a sovereign state. Hence this is a question of why there exist nation states in the first place. There are many practical reasons for nation states to exist, but one of the reasons there to exist nation states is to create social cohesion amongst the populace that might otherwise have little if anything to do with each others lives. It's a collective idea. You might call it "invented" or artificial, but a lot of people tend think of themselves as citizens of a country, people of that country. This isn't an unimportant idea. Hence nation states have been very successfull, even if the negative aspects are typically focused on (nationalism, jingoism etc).
And this comes to the ideas of P1, P2 and P3. All of them focus only on the individual. It's about a human, not humans as a social group or as a society. And here lies my critique: by focusing on the individuals rights not only is humans acting as a society sidelined, but totally marginalized and borders (i.e. sovereign countries) are just a given thing that simply seem to be a nuisance for the freedom of the individual.
Yet since we are very social animals and the societies we have organized into makes us a totally dominant species in this planet, it is wrong not to think about the issue from a standpoint on how successfull societies formed into nation states work.
However nation states is what we have right now, but only some are successful and some are failing badly. Who can blame folks from fleeing the horror and poverty of the worst nation states? Anyone who is not sympathetic to their plight could easily be said to be immoral by anyone else who cares about human beings.
But fully open borders is not a sustainable policy as long as the world is so unequal. One day there will be no borders or nations, I hope, but the task of moral people in successful nation states today is to show respect and offer support for people who cannot flourish in their own locale. This can be done by encouraging policies that help other nation states and their citizens to become successful - even if this incurs some material sacrifice. Not to do so is immoral if morality is about caring about other human beings.
If such caring was crafted creatively and constructively it could make a big difference. For example, would be migrants to the US, say, who would not normally qualify for entry, could be entered into a lottery, where there is a small but not impossibly remote chance each year of obtaining US citizenship provided they do not attempt to enter illegally. Each year, if their number doesn't come up they would be entitled to a modest lump sum of dollars , or perhaps their community would get it. These small beer policies aimed at helping individuals and small communities abroad should be employed alongside the bigger aid and trade initiatives aimed at helping failing countries become successful. To have this vision requires notions of self sacrifice and sharing.
Not quite ready to believe that. Nation states have various degrees of morality, and different levels of concern about individuals. If that makes me a fantasist, so be it.
I've noticed that one of the most patriotic people, meaning that they love or have a fondness to their country and the people, cherish the culture and heritage are actually ex-pats living in foreign countries. As aliens they are constantly in touch living and working with foreigners.
Nation states are one of those things that links totally different people together. Even the rich and the poor.
then we just disagree - i believe simply by being human i have several natural rights, i have a right not to be killed, not to be enslaved, not to be raped, etc I would go further to say I have a right to use my talents and effort to better my life.
Quoting LD Saunders
all of that seems inconstant with -
Quoting LD Saunders
There is nothing in terms of linking people that a nation state has to offer that cannot be acheved by less destructive means. For example people support league sports teams very ardently - often from another nation state.
Quoting Relativist
A better question is "how should the world be in the long term?". This then provides the long term goals of planning. If we do not address the long term requirements then we can never break free of historical chaos. This is true of all spheres of economic and political life it seems, where few are prepared to look beyond short term "problem solving" - (let's not call it short term "planning" because political goals are rarely stated, even short term ones)
Australia is going through this at the moment, with regard to about 1,100 displaced persons still residing in offshore detention in PNG and Nauru that had arrived previously by boat. There is now immense popular pressure on the Government to offer refuge to these persons, some of whom have been detained in these venues in pretty wretched conditions for more than five years. However the Government says that if they are re-housed in Australia, then this will signal to the people-smugglers that 'arriving guarantees residency' and the illegal immigration trade will re-start. It's an extremely difficult issue.
Yes indeed it is a difficult situation (to think about), especially for anyone who has empathy for others. There are masses of people wanting to migrate for a host of reasons ranging from life threatening persecution and poverty to seeking Shangri La and everything in between. The age of communication has increased the appetite for migration and also enabled a variety of methods of migration, such as trafficking and now the walking train of Guatemala. On the other hand, the age of communication has done little to increase empathy for migrants - dead toddlers washed up on the beach doesn't cut it with most of the prosperous populations of the target nations, where the age of communications has seen a huge rise in hostility to "others" and defensiveness against a perceived invasive threat.
On the other hand, I really do think that there are far too many impoverished people from poorer regions of the world wishing to seek a better life in richer nations for uncontrolled migration to be allowed. It is unsustainable and would lead to chaos. And yes resentment from large sections of the host populations when change happens too fast and on too large a scale. This might be an unpleasant realisation, but it is a fact that will not change. And while extra provision has to be made for people fleeing from opression and danger, it is clear the asylum system is being sorely tested by economic migrants.
So what to do? Firstly, I think we ought to recognise that countries targeted for migration have something in common. They are generally speaking "liberal democracies". People want to move to liberal democracies, ideally. They like what they see. In the long term the current batch of liberal democracies need to "export" their political system to the world and not do the opposite for selfish reasons - e.g arms sales and trade that enhances the elites of despotic states who are never going to allow trade to soften them like what eventually happened in the west throughout the course of the industrial revolution and in to the twentieth century. This exporting of liberal democracy should not be seen as patronising or colonialism - it is a vital mission, and one that should not be driven by material benefit for the exporters.
In the shorter term -but linking in with the idea of the liberal democracies jointly selling their philosophy to the rest of the world - they need to pick out countries for privileged treatment that are going to respond best to massive aid and then accept migrants as citizens. The developed world can still have its quotas for migration.
Meanwhile, as you point out, fear of ‘the Other’ is used, or rather exploited, for pretty shabby political gains, as we can see with Trump’s unrelenting fear-mongering. But he is appealing to, or exploiting for political ends, real fears. Obama was also pretty strict about border control, but he didn’t showboat it for votes the way Trump does.
Quoting Kippo
Yeah good luck with that. :roll:
Border controls are seen as shameful by many progressive leaning people; some accept the need but are still wary of admitting it. Maybe such policies need to be publicly explained so that the likes of Trump can't exploit people's fears. The "left" needs to be savvy.
Yes I agree. the "liberal elite" have been congratualting themselves on the rights revoultions that have come about in recent decades, while holding on to all the cash for themselves. I think Universal Basic Income is the only way to make globalisation work for everyone. It's such a shame that Nixon never quite got it onto the statute book!
"As Catholic agencies assisting poor and vulnerable migrants in the United States and around the world, we are deeply saddened by the violence, injustice, and deteriorating economic conditions forcing many people to flee their homes in Central America. While nations have the right to protect their borders, this right comes with responsibilities: governments must enforce laws proportionately, treat all people humanely, and provide due process.
We affirm that seeking asylum is not a crime. We urge all governments to abide by international law and existing domestic laws that protect those seeking safe haven and ensure that all those who are returned to their home country are protected and repatriated safely.
Furthermore, we strongly advocate for continued U.S. investments to address the underlying causes of violence and lack of opportunity in Central America. Our presence throughout the Americas has convinced us that migration is a regional issue that requires a comprehensive, regional solution. An enforcement-only approach does not address nor solve the larger root causes that cause people to flee their countries in search of protection.
As Christians, we must answer the call to act with compassion towards those in need and to work together to find humane solutions that honor the rule of law and respect the dignity of human life.”
I think that's a decent statement.
Quoting Wayfarer
If marijuana legalisation continues apace throughout the world and it is seen as "successful" on its own terms then cocaine legalisation will be more likely to be considered. But it would have to follow a very different model - one of harm and use reduction, with just enough supply available to eliminate the motive for criminal production. There is an awful lot to be gained if the appropriate model of legalisation based on expert advice and scientific data can be passed. Not only would many Latin American areas become viable to live in again, I think there would be a drop in cocaine use and addiction. This is what the experts tend to suggest, I believe.
I'm not against screening for wanted criminals and people for whom there is good reason to believe that they're risks re terrorism. But that's it, really.
Ideally, I'd prefer the entire world was just one country.
I say that because our reporters on the ground, traveling with the folks coming from the south to the USA, have been organized, guaranteed safe passage to the USA border, food, places to rest, medicine and support by the catholic churches. The folks that have been part of the separation of families that took place 6 months ago are being dropped off by the hundreds at churches here in the Valley. ICE is transporting them to the churches because the 21 day time limit has run out and these folks need somewhere to go. They are dropped off at the churches and from there they can contact family members across the country and are given a bus ticket or a plane ticket to get them there. One church being interviewed said they normally receive 10-15 immigrants a week and are now receiving people by the hundreds. The first day, of the first wave, of released immigrants cost the church over 2k in medicine, personal hygiene supplies and basic needs.
These churches are not equipped to handle the influx of immigrants they are receiving but they will not say no to anyone.
When I consider the validity of what is being said and what I am actually seeing, I am almost 100% convinced that the churches are the ones encouraging the migration through other countries to get to the USA.
The border of any country is not "moral" or "immoral" the border of the country "is". How it is respected by those within its' "border" and those outside of its' "border" may at times seem to be perceived as "political" but that waxes and wanes with time, at most countries borders do.
To apply whether or not a countries border "is justly or unjustly resolving the issues of just conflicts of inherent human freedoms from the equivalent human beings it separates" one needn't look far to see whether or not that works over the long term. My state of residence is one that shares a countries border, in addition to its' state borders within the nation of the United States. Likewise, the residents of Mexico share a border with the USAs' nation states of Texas, Arizona and California as well as the USA's country border. When our (both the USA and Mexico) nations' borders are respected we can handle the daily flow of people and commerce between our nations.
Our (both the USA and Mexico) ports of entry used to be able to process both of the countries citizens through on a daily basis with the likely delay being the person in front of you having to empty their pockets as they walked through the guarded turn style. Residents of both countries know both the benefits and the drawbacks of having each other to trade with, cooperate with lawfully and orderly.
We (both the USA and Mexico) have done it for decades which means we have experienced borders being tested by those who do not reside in a countries border state trying to govern the respected borders. I am speaking of both of "us", both sides of each nations' borders. When the light is not shinning on who is governing the countries' border that we share and there is regular flow of transactions both legal and illegal, the border works. It doesn't work legally nor morally but it works for the humans involved.
It works for the self appointed border possessors, both the Zeta and Sinaloa associations, who have their own laws of safe passage that must be followed. It works for the residents of the USA because our nations' border is functioning as a guide, so those who wish to cross either way, at a legal point of entry, can and be processed in a reasonable amount of time.
Neither of our individual nations' borders cannot handle the influx of a large amount of people at once. I do believe that Mexico and the USA, in a governmental alliance not tried before (that I have witnessed) are trying to respectfully handle all humans involved. We are not sure how to handle the sheer numbers but we are trying to find the best way possible, knowing there is no perfect way to do it. We both know how to do it orderly but again, neither country can handle the sheer number at once. Who is morally at fault? Neither of our countries, we are all doing the best we can, with what we have.
The network of churches encouraging these travelers, providing food and comfort, recognize our nations' borders and also acknowledge that they themselves cannot handle the sheer number of people wanting to come in at once. The churches along the way to the USA are handling those traveling, not final destinations. The final destination for many travelers is not within Mexico but within the USAs' nations' border and that involves the churches of the USA finding permanent places simply for survival. But once here, the ability to thrive becomes limited because of the legal status of the traveler and that is where the church falls out of grace.
Can an organization claiming religious status simply be laundering people through our nations' without any future lined up for them?
What position does that leave the traveler in? In a country that is ruled by laws, but in being in either country, without that countries permission leaves the traveler vulnerable to any personal crimes as they cannot report to the authorities of that country because of the ramifications of being 'found'. Does that equate to "is justly or unjustly resolving the issues of just conflicts of inherent human freedoms from the equivalent human beings it separates"?
Is the church acting morally when it does not inform the travelers of the known obstacles that those they are encouraging and guiding are going to encounter?
I am sorry, could you please point to the act of mercy that says I am willing to lead you into a place I am unwilling to travel to and leave you there.
I think the one thing I can tell you that is an important point in these discussions, is that the Church does view these people as individuals, with individual needs and circumstances. And with certain inherent human rights. I can also tell you when faced with individuals in need the Church should do what is within its power to aide and assist them.
While the Church recognizes boarders, and acknowledges their need, it does not see them as superior to human rights.
Sorry should have been I have NO reason to believe.....
Freud?
Whose church decides what church is going to support the human rights of all looking for refuge?
The church knows that the word is easily spoken but deed is quite another undertaking. Who is carrying out to the masses, the words that are promised in the church of the people?
http://usccb.org/about/financial-reporting/upload/financial-statements-2016-2017.PDF
For the readers digest version:
Income is about 245 M/yr
Expenses about 238 M/yr
of which
directly to immigration - 96m
indirectly to other charities - 102M
Salaries and Management - about 14M
Sure if you dig you can come up with some anecdotal instant that could be in conflict with this, but in general - this is the view.
I know this is the conventional wisdom. And while the Catholic Church is a huge organization, and takes in vast amounts of money, and has great financial holdings, it also has great costs, the largest of which by far are charitable in nature. The Church, in general, about breaks even.
If it makes you feel any better, by any objective measure there is no bank that has suffered from more corruption over the last 20 or so years than the Vatican bank. It has been an absolute mess.
I think I have more of a distrust against all forms of organized religion, per se, as opposed to individual believers. I think some of the morality gets lost in the hierarchy, and I'm not saying that the Vatican is solely guilty of this by any means.
A Jesuit novitiate is at his first house celebration of the Feast day of St. Ignatius. There are drinks, very good wine, steak, lobsters, all the fixings - brandy and cigars to end. The Novitiate turns to the priest next to him at the table and says - If this is poverty - bring on chastity
Let's get one thing straight - rights are not immaterial, infinitely extendable things. They're awarded to you by other human beings because those human beings made a cost-benefit judgement on whether or not you and everyone else should have them, correctly or incorrectly.
Rights are very much physical. They are dependent on resources and the ability of other members of society to coordinate violence (law enforcement). All rights come at a cost to somebody, some rights have low costs to everyone, so we have them. Other rights would come at a huge cost to everyone and a benefit to a tiny minority, so if we're rational, we don't have them.
I do not think my right to life, my right not to be enslaved, my right not to have violence done to me, my right to use my talents and efforts to improve my life, are awarded by other humans, I believe i have these rights simply by being human.
should be "are not" awarded ....
So you think that being fans of sport teams can replace the nation state? Or perhaps we could relate to those liking Star Wars and those being in the Star Trek camp as obviously these aren't so evil as "fans" of nation states, the ugly violent "nationalists". That gives us enough social cohesion for our societies to work?
How do you approach democracy then?
Would you assume the World would be better if basically the Han Chinese and Indians and their politicians, if only they could get together, would decide how much taxes you have to pay to them? Because likely these two groups would dominate if the World would truly come together and democracy would mean elections on a global level where every man and woman (and other, let's add that for political correctness) would have one vote.
To view the nation states as inherently evil and worthless simply doesn't at all think about how our societies are and have been formed and takes every positive aspect as simply given. Just like if one would be totally against globalism here in this forum, but then not giving any thought that one sharing your ideas with theoretically with anyone in the World that can write and understand English fluently enough not to be thrown out of this site.
Nordic countries have totally open borders to each other. Nordic people can cross them freely, there are no major problems between Nordic countries, but the borders surely do exist. (Btw, for Americans to immigrate to the Nordic countries is very difficult)
If I move to let's say to Oslo in Norway, the only thing I have to do is to inform the Postal Service that my address has changed. I don't need any work permits, visas or green cards from any authority. I can buy a house Oslo and put my children into school there and start immediately using the Norwegian health care services. Tax officials will later automatically notice that I've moved to Norway and I'll start paying taxes to Norway.
If crossing the border is so easy, that doesn't mean that there doesn't exist a border between Finland and Norway. Once in Norway I've left behind the EU, entered a NATO country and a multitude other things have happened, so not only the currency has changed, but the language and even the culture has somewhat changed. Above all, now I'm a foreigner living in Norway. If I want to vote in elections, then I have to apply to citizenship, which likely puts me in line with a mass of Syrians, Pakistanis, Eritreans etc. waiting for their application to be handled.
The idea that borders are bad as they constrain the individual is naive ignorant thinking or just a narrow viewpoint only focused on the individual. Similar is the idea that nation states are inherently bad. Open borders work perfectly, if the countries don't have a huge differences in prosperity or overall safety.
The fact is that humans fall into groups known as different people, talk different languages and have different cultures. That people form societies around these kind of things is not inherently bad. Just as the Nordic countries show, nation states aren't inherent hostile against other states just as people aren't inherently hostile to others.
Why is that? Do Nordic countries use the Merit system? Is there a limit to how many immigrants are allowed in annually? What happens when someone does enter a Nordic country without permission?
The way you speak of traveling with ease within Nordic countries is how United States citizens move throughout the states of our nation and our districts (D.C. and our territories Puerto Rico ect) with the currency, laws and protected rights remain the same for citizens. The states themselves offer up a diversity in religion, food and traditions native to their state. The greeting you would get from @Hanover in Georgia would be VERY different than the greeting you would receive at our ranch here in the Desert Southwest. From attire to manners, dialect to burying traditions, our state are very different cultures.
I am not sure of what the size differential is between the Nordic countries and United States of America, which leads me to wonder if it wouldn't be a fair correlation between the two as far as mobility within the defined borders. Maybe Nordic countries collectively are what the States are of the Union represent? Would that be accurate?
Yes, in terms of bringing people together. A certain psychological need for togetherness and belonging is fulfilled. Obviously I'm not suggesting that Manchester United raises taxes or invades Poland.
Quoting ssu
I mentioned previously how nation states have historically brought about much "good" - though it is a mixed bag of course. But are they not really as parochial as modern tribes and an impediment to attaining fairness for all regardless of where you are born?
Quoting ssu
I don't get where you are coming from here with respect to nations not existing.
Quoting ssu
You mean in a "united world?". I guess there would be levels of increasing geographic scales of government with voters choosing. (Not unlike the USA, which in some ways is not a typical nation state becasue it was a huge space sparsely populated and then filled with people from all round the world.)
Not actually. There can be some specialized professions that applying for a work permit might be easier. Here it goes so that before a residence permit can be granted to you, you must find a job in Finland. When you have found a job, you can apply for a residence permit. You must apply for a residence permit before you come to Finland in the US.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
If you can just prove that you have a job in Finland, I think there's no quotas. The country has agreed to accept quota refugees a whopping 750 people (and people are frightened!) Now in 2015-2016 some 30 000 came here and basically fifth of them likely will get a residence permit. All other Nordic countries have taken in more refugees and immigrants. Sweden naturally the most.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Well, if it would be an American that would mean that you come here without a passport (as naturally tourists from many countries can come here). Likely they'll put you back on a plane where you came from or contact your embassy to solve the issue. If it's someone from Eritrea, Afghanistan or other Third World countries who seeks asylum, they likely put you somewhere to wait for your application to be handled. That might take a time.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Surely someone from Arizona and some New Yorker have differences. But your are still Americans. That's the point. I think few multiethnic countries have succeeded successfully in inventing an identity that consolidates over older identities. Good example is the UK with the "new" identity of being British. A Scotsman can be British, but he will be offended if you refer him as being English. Just like Hannover, if he's from Georgia, might find it strange if someone refers him as being a yankee (which can happen as some people think yankees refer to all Americans).
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Oh no.
By population size here are some US states that by population are the same size as the Nordic countries:
Sweden = Michigan
Denmark = Wisconsin
Finland = Minnesota
Norway = South Carolina
Iceland = Wyoming (minus 200 000 persons)
So we are talking about the smaller states. Hence only Sweden has more people than Arizona and all put together they equal the population of Texas, but are smaller to the population of California. By landmass the countries are similar in size to Alaska, Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona all added together.
Even if people can be quite fanatic in their support of their team, it's still a hobby, past-time. And of course if the team loses all it's games there won't be so many fans. If the club goes bankrupt and is dissolved, what happens to the fans? Well, they just turn to some other team or sport. It's in the end just leisure time.
Yet the issue isn't just about bringing people together. It's about that they accept the laws, accept the authority that taxes them, that people accept civic duties and participate in the state for example by voting in elections and basically feel that the state serves them.
Quoting Kippo
Mixed bag, of course, but how are they an impediment to fairness?
You might be familiar to minorities in the terms of race or sexual identity, which are focused upon with modern identity politics in the US. Yet when the differences between a minority and majority are that the people talk a different language, have a different culture, a different religion and above all, don't even live together, what do they have in common? They have no interaction, don't know each other, so what on Earth bonds them together so well, that the minority would accept to be dominated by the majority living somewhere else?
Quoting Kippo
Voters choosing what? And what increasing geographic scales?
In democracies it's typically one citizen one vote, hence in the "United World" the biggest minority would be the 1,3 billion Han Chinese. Asia would basically dominate the political scene:
Just look at the populations in (2018):
1 Asia 4,436,224,000 (including Australia & Oceania)
2 Africa 1,216,130,000
3 Europe 738,849,000
4 North America 579,024,000
5 South America 422,535,000
Hence if Asians, China and India, can get together, they rule the "United World". If you live in North America, you would be a smal minority.
Because the nation state tends to promote itself as a competitor with other nations. With competition there are winners and losers, and in the case of adherence to nation states, winners don't care if the playing fields are not level (Within a nation state however, there is usually much more effort made to make things egalitarian between geographic areas). A person born into a wealthy nation state has a much better chance of a bter life than a person born into a poor one.
Quoting ssu
People who make up "minorities" and " majorities" require a cultural context to be given to them in order for them to accept the classification. In order to accept belonging to some groups even. They have to be told that they are group X because of Y. This is not true of language, admittedly, whereby you automatically identify with those who speak your language. It is partially true though even for appearance - it is others who may make a big deal of how you appear - you wouldn't even know how you look without a mirror! Also a shared language is no guarantee of all speakers belonging to a single block of interest - think civil war; N Korean inoctrination....
Yet you disregard the fact that most countries do have good relations with each other and conflicts are quite rare these days. If you argue that countries are competitors at the economic level because of capitalism, well, that's part of capitalism. And then you disregard the fact that countries prosper for mutual trade. Those countries that have closed their borders and think they don't need the outside World are dirt poor with huge problems. And that there are poorer nations and wealthier nations surely isn't a fault because nation states are formed based on nationationality. How a society works, how prosperous it is, how strong it's institutions are and how much social cohesion there is a result of a multitude of factors.
Quoting Kippo
Partially? I think a racial minority that is discriminated wouldn't see it so lamely as you do. Or if you are dirt poor and I'm extremely rich, that class difference between us doesn't require a 'cultural context' given by somebody for us to notice the difference. That difference is evident in our everyday lives.
Awareness of your identity is seldom something you seek or you invent, but something that your surroundings give you.
No I'm not saying that countries operate like capitalist concerns. If you think about it they clearly don't. Capitalism is supposed to be about competing for business and winning because you can sell the most. In theory everyone benefits because the best product wins. And capitalist concerns prefer to do away with national borders as much as possible.
Quoting ssu
"National identity" has to be culturally imparted - history, myths, hurts, triumphs, strengths, and so forth. I can understand your confusion though because we tend to think that we as individuals have the national mythology embedded in us intrinsically - this is what gives rise to the sense of superiority and entitlement that nationalist leaning people have.
Quoting Kippo
WHO thinks so?
Where you seem to be confused and many others are also is when we talk of a national identity as a social construct, something that people have invented, that this means there's nothing "real" in it, as if it is just an imaginary construct and hence unimportant or easily changeable. However you mentioned history and to history there exists an objective reality of what has taken place (and not only subjective stories about it). And people do remember what has happened to them. That collective memory isn't just something invented out of thin air.
Perhaps it's simply that in our time we take nearly everything as given and don't see how entitled we are especially in the West where we do have functioning democratic nation states. Then it's easy to question the whole meaning of it. And of course, a dispute between two countries make news, not a long term mutually beneficial relationship between two or more countries. Perhaps you have to be a Kurd or a Palestinian today to understand just how important an own nation state is.
Do they remember what they did to others?
I'm sure people remember what they did personally.
And on the rare occasion people can experience even collective guilt as the Germans do even now.
I am not sure our borders should be open to everyone. Our liberty depends very much on a shared culture, and while others may enter the US temporarily they are required to take a test for citizenship if they want to stay. While anyone educated in our school system should be able to pass the test for citizenship, and that education would make the children, who have been educated, citizens regardless of where their parents came from. What makes a person a desirable citizen is an education for citizenship. Until a person has this education, a person's stay needs to be limited.
However, humanitarian needs must be met by civilizations capable of doing so. The US has a legal process for this, and those who want to enter the country and whose lives are threatened in the country of origin, should be cared for in refugee camps until the process is completed.
The Germans make sure their regrettable history is not forgotten by putting up markers where Jews were forced out of the homes, and in the classroom where every child learns of the history. I would like to see the US adopt this humanitarian effort by putting up markers to remember those who lived on the land before Europeans came, and also where those who lived on this land but came from Mexico before the US took control of the land through war. Our schools should teach our history and its effect on others. If the whole world acknowledged their wrongs and how their wrongs affected others, we might have a better human experience on this planet and change our consciousness in an important way.
Not sure about this. Actually not really sure what you mean by this.
Quoting Athena
Same here - not exactly sure the point you are making.
Quoting Athena
Not sure there is a need for "camps" for those individuals with the means or relationships to not need them.
First question: meaning of ."Our liberty depends very much on a shared culture," There are two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people. Culture with education for good moral judgment gives us liberty. Authority over the people takes away our liberty and a lack of good moral judgment is totally disastrous making authority over the people essential for the same reason we keep our loved on dogs on a leash to protect them unless they are well behaved and responsive to our spoken commands.
Second question of meaning "What makes a person a desirable citizen is an education for citizenship." We are not born with good reasoning, but only the potential for developing good reasoning. Without education for good moral judgment, we are not well prepared for civilization. When our potential for good reasoning is not developed we tend to be ruled by our emotions. People ruled by their emotions may or may not be the kind of people we want to be around, and even if they are very nice people, they are poorly fit for self-government. Self-government requires highly developed thinking skills.
Refugees do not always "come with the means or relationships to not need them (refugee camp?). If I interpret you correctly you are speaking of people who meet the criteria for entering the US. While some meet these criteria they seem to be coming faster then we can process them, and others who do not meet these criteria may need our help most. Fleeing refugees do not come with many benefits. There are language barriers and financial barriers and even cultural barriers. We are failing miserably to meet the needs of our own disadvantaged citizens, and this is a situation that cannot absorb an unlimited number of people for an indefinite period of time. Desperate people do desperate things and it is foolish to throw open our doors with no thought of the consequences. I work with the homeless and I know horror stories such as a woman with children taking refuge with a man, who turns out to be a child molester. A huge free-for-all with no thought of the consequences is not a good idea. And using our military to keep people out, and ignoring humanitarian needs is not right either.
Quoting Athena
While in some nirvana - we would all live in nations of well educated rational beings - can't make my self get to a point where there is some kind of intelligence or rationality test for citizenship. After the last 2 years however I am 100% behind such a test for president.
On the last point - just fyi, currently it is legal for people to enter the US and seek asylum. The current process allows for these people to enter, and if they have the means or ability to live in the states while they await processing they can do so, on a promise that they return for their hearing. My only point was this works fine, and we should not have a need to detain these people while they await the decision on their applications.
https://ignatiansolidarity.net/campaignforhospitality/asylum-pledge/?utm_source=igsol.net&utm_medium=urlshortener&utm_campaign=social-media-share
Quoting Athena
Well, that's what university history departments do. Not perhaps primary schools, but the highest learning does this. The focus on others and the negative impacts is so popular among historians that one should really put an effort on the bright side also, really. True objective history isn't pushing a political agenda, it's telling the past how it is and showing what was bad, but also what was good. Criticism is needed, but don't forget all the positive effects on others too! Perhaps the problem is that view too easily historians as pushing some agenda just with the topic they study.
I think our understanding of education is different. Education for citizenship began around the first camp fire. All groups of humans have a mythology about their existence that is passed on from generation to generation. The purpose of mythology is uniting people and preparing the young for adulthood.
I do not know what you mean by many multicultural non authoritarian cultures? However I do know of a people's who live on a island that is being covered by the ocean and they have to move. From what I saw in a TV show, these people had a paradise on their little island and they are very gentle and pleasant people. They are united by culture and there is concern of about what will happen to them when they are moved and must live with different people in a different environment. My point is culture is all that is needed when there are few people and every thing can be handled on a personal level. Also terrible things happen to people when all they know of life is their isolated culture and industrialist come in and change their way of life and destroy their culture. Where are the many non authoritarian multicultural people of which you speak? What is the size of their populations?
To become a citizen of the US an immigrant must take a citizenship test, right?
Education for logic and good moral judgment is very different from the original transmission of a groups mythology. That difference is what makes the West different from the East. Western cultures can trace their roots back to Athens and linear logic. The East has wholistic logic. During the Dark Ages, Western civilizations were consumed by Christianity and for a period of time, Christianity destroyed all that was not Christian and that included pagan temples that were places of learning, so linear logic had to be reintroduced to the West and democracy was not possible until this happened. However, a test of citizenship is more about our laws and mythology than about logic and moral judgment. And our education stopped being about good moral judgment and moral training was left to the church in 1958.
A problem with that explanation of logic and democracy is, small groups of people, such as those living on the island, are by nature democratic. Oh dear, now we are really in a logical mess aren't we? I hope others help us untie this logic knot. The God of Abraham religions are about a God's chosen people, including this God choosing who will be masters and who will be slaves and the religions are not exactly compatible with democracy, nor do they lead to the technological development that we pride ourselves in, but this might be a completely different subject? However, it is very relevant to the subject. I totally appreciate your style and that you have expanded my awareness of the logical problem. A huge thank you!
According to Trump and Trump supporters allowing people to enter the US and apply for sanctuary was not working. First Trump repeatedly tells these people are criminals and second he tells us once they are inside our country they do not return for their trials but become hidden in the US where they do terrible things. I am not agreeing with this reasoning, only repeating it as the reasoning for using the military to keep these people out. Oh, it is must be said, we began moving in this direction because of 9/11 and a fear of outsiders that is greater than it has ever been. 9/11 lead to major changes in our country, as well as the computer and ability to store much more information. This is something we need to speak of when speaking of how the US is changing, along with discussing what war has to to with education and the ramifications of the National Defense Education Act,
The children are waking so I have to close, but first I want to say, I have a very different understanding of Germany than you do. The book "The Anglo-German Problem" by Charles Sarolea is on line. It was written when Germany was mobilizing for the first world war. I consider this book to be one of the most important books ever written. We are on the same path Germany followed and there are parallels with the rise of Hitler and the rise of Trump that we to be aware of. This is directly related to the OP and the change in the US.
It is far, far more important to educate the children for citizenship and good moral judgment than education the handful of citizens who go to the college. When we mobilized for the first world war, Industry attempted to the close the schools claiming the war caused a labor shortage and that they were not getting their monies worth from education because they still had to train their new employees for their jobs. Teachers argued, it was those who understood our democracy and why it must be defended who were the first to sign up for the war, and that even if we won the war, our nation would be devastated if we did not continue educating the young to replace all those who die in the war. I got this information from the 1917 National Education Association Conference book.
The 1917 National Education Association Conference book is a record of ever speech made at the convention. One of the speakers was a military man who explained why our education must imitate Germany's education and for the first time in the US, education for technology was added to grade school education. This was vital to us winning the war. However, it was not until 1958 that we stopped transmitting our culture, and ramifications of this change in education, brings us to the OP,. Instead of seeing me criticizing what is so, would you please interpret what I am saying as saying what is so and saying there are consequences to the change in education? There are many benefits to the change. It is not either/or, this is good and this is bad. However, the social, economic and political ramifications need to be in our awareness.
Quoting Athena
That is in a way a totally different time and not only in Germany. Europeans hadn't seen a major war since the Napoleonic times nearly a century and the fact how lethal modern warfare had become wasn't understood.
In a way there is some resemblance to our time,yet we aren't so oblivious to the perils of a World War as the people in 1914 were. When Hitler rose to power everything was different than in 1914.
Quoting AthenaSorry Athena, I'm not sure what you imply here. Could you say it in another way?
[ [s]High[/s]lighting shows my changes to the quoted text.]
Whatever else is the case, the freedoms and rights you refer to are created, defined and enforced by humans. They have no existence in the scientific physical universe other than as human-created concepts/ideas. So it's really just a matter of us all agreeing on these 'rights'. And if we can't, well, I'm not sure what happens then. These 'rights' only exist because we invented them. We discuss rights and freedoms as though they are gifts from the Universe, or God, or something. They're not. They're expressions of things we wish were true. And they are true, but only to the extent that we enforce them upon each other and (sometimes) on other parts of the Universe.
So my conclusion is that this argument's one and only purpose is to discuss or define the freedoms and rights which we will then enforce upon one another, and the world. Right?
Rereading what I said, I am displeased with my wording. To clarify, it is not my intention to criticize but to be factual. I don't see things as black or white, good or bad, but a mix of good and bad. My thinking tends to be complex. I believe it was the Prussians who militarized Germany and that the US has adopted the Prussian models of bureaucracy and education and is now what the US defended its democracy against. There is much good in this, but obviously some bad. What the OP said is the bads resulting from imitating Prussia in every significant way and dropping the transmission of our culture.
Instead of me arguing my points, I am very curious why you believe what you believe? I have gotten my information from books and I named two of the books that I think are the most important. Where did you get your information? LOL often when I disagree with someone, it is because the person lives in a different country, and then I feel foolish for speaking as though what I believe is unquestioned fact. I do not know the world from the point of view of those outside the US. I do not think I know everything that is important, but I do know somethings that might be important.
I must take issue with these words.....
"Whatever else is the case, the freedoms and rights you refer to are created, defined and enforced by humans. They have no existence in the scientific physical universe other than as human-created concepts/ideas."
I think understanding our animal nature and our evolution to huge civilizations, is important to our understanding of reality. What you said appears true today, but our reality today does not come from nature. Our reality today is man-made. Not even a god with chosen people can be held responsible for this reality.
Humans are social animals like the apes and we have a very limited ability to actually know each other. Our large civilizations are the result of violating the laws of nature. If we were not violating the laws of nature, our largest groups would be around 600 people and we not be sharing our territory with others. We would not have laws and law enforces but all matters would be personally resolved. However, we began violating the laws of nature about the time we developed religions/mythologies. Then being "one of us" meant sharing the same belief and explanation of life and our groups could become much larger. Only relatively recently did national and political ideas determine who we are and what it means to be one of us. This is an evolved, man-made reality, not exactly one created by a god or nature, and we need to be aware that we violating the laws of nature if we are going to manage this rationally.
Well, Preussia unified Germany and had a long military tradition, however just to put this to be a Preussian issue doesn't tell the truth of pre-WW1 Europe. France and other countries were also far more militaristic or jingoist as simply the horrors of the Great War hadn't yet happened.
Perhaps in some way this post-WW2 guilt that German identity has is closest to that Americans have with the issue of slavery and the discrimination of blacks. The difference is of course that the Germans lost the war, were occupied and everything collapsed. For example the Soviet totalitarian dictatorship killed masses of Russians and the system collapsed in the end, however the Soviet Union didn't fall with American tanks on the Red Square in Moscow. Hence there isn't an unavoidable need to confront the past and make a separation from the past, which can be seen starting from the views of the present ruler of Russia Vladimir Putin. Russians can allways be proud of the Soviet Union defeating Hitler and putting the first man into space.
Quoting Athena
About Germans? Reading a lot, studying hisotry in the university, following the German media discourse and talking to Germans themselves. Have been there a couple of times.
Quoting Athena
Never underestimate the effects of globalization, modern media (including the social media) and the Western lifestyle we share. Viewpoints are quite similar in Europe as in the States. The differences are actually small.
Exit options are absolutely crucial since that way people who don't like just how they are governed could move somewhere better. I don't believe that everyone should automatically be able to move to their desired country, but I do believe that everyone should be able to move *somewhere* else.
I think that non-Jews who want to move to Israel should be forced to go through a process where they can prove that they are willing to integrate--either by serving in the Israeli military, by formally converting to Judaism, or by going through a new process which should be created which would function like a quasi-conversion and include a lot of the elements of conversion (Torah study, et cetera) but with them becoming an honorary Jew at the end. This would differ from a formal conversion to Judaism because this would allow them to keep their existing religion as opposed to adopt Judaism, but otherwise they would go through much of the same process as formal converts to Judaism would.
Of course, this would require Jewish law to be changed, since there's either a Torah passage or an ancient rabbinical ruling that states that non-Jews who study the Torah should be given the death penalty. Now, obviously few people in Israel nowadays would actually agree with the death penalty part, but still, good luck convincing Ultra-Orthodox Israeli Jews that non-Jews should be able to study the Torah unless they actually want to convert to Judaism--and I mean genuinely convert as opposed to converting only for economic reasons or whatever.
One such normative argument is that different groups should have their own nation-state in order to protect and look after their own interests and also the interests of their Diaspora as well as to provide a safe haven for members of their Diaspora in the event that things will ever go seriously south for them. This argument does have some merit--for instance, different groups--such as Jews and Soviet Germans--did in fact historically experience persecution. And of course if there would have been a Jewish state in the 1930s, then more Jews could have escaped the impending Holocaust had they actually been able to foresee it. And of course such a Jewish state could have also pursued efforts on the international stage and elsewhere against Nazi Germany--for instance, trying to put pressure on Nazi Germany by assassinating top Nazi German officials or whatever.
For what it's worth, this argument isn't necessarily an argument in favor of total exclusion, but it does suggest that immigrants who move to particular nation-states should sometimes or even often assimilate to a meaningful extent in order to become a part of the broader body politic of this nation-state. Interestingly enough, pre-Hitler, some German nationalist groups actually were willing to accept assimilated German Jews as members. So, group membership does not necessarily need to have an ethnic criteria to it. For that matter, even South Africa had an "honorary whites" category.
BTW, are you the same Athena as from Historum?
All the political stuff involved with the world wars is unimportant to the point I make about Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens.
Thanks to this forum, I am getting the Beast is consuming all of us in Europe and the US. The New World Order is not the family order of old and this is both good and bad. The New World Order and the Military Industrial Order are the same thing. Hitler and Bush called it the New World Order. Eisenhower called it the Military-Industrial Complex and I think his term is more descriptive. Whatever we call it it is a social/econmic/political order and I think our awareness of it and how it is different from family order, is vitally important.
Unlike kings of old, bureaucracies run by policy never die. Prussian military bureaucracy is designed to maintain a war effort even if all the generals die. Once the policy is established, it no longer needs thinking humans to keep it going. Compared to rule by a king or president where there is abrupt change when they die or are replaced. Because the US adopted the German model of bureaucracy and the German model of education that goes with it, the US is now what it defended its democracy against. We have reactionary politics as Germany did and we have our own Hitler and thugs.
If Prussians revolutionized the military, so did the but in totally different way the Prussian educators with Wilhelm Humboldt leading the charge and the Prussian Reform Movement (that abolished in Prussia serfdom and was based on Enlightenment ideas).
And in the heart of Prussia.
Wartimes give one way to see things, but I guess now days the focus is on the competitive advantage and that education is viewed as literally as an investment to increase economic growth. It's not a militaristic view, it's more of a capitalistic view. Higher education is viewed as a hub that creates innovative new tech companies, creates new industries. I think that's the dominant view.
I think the Germans/Prussians are pretty awesome people, and that is why I began reading about them.
You missed the point of why I write about Prussian military bureaucracy being applied to citizens. In the several years, I have attempted to raise awareness of the organizational difference between that bureaucratic order and the bureaucratic order the US had, no one has related with an understanding of what a difference bureaucratic order makes, and how this is connected with the change of education in the US.
For sure today's education is not about citizenship but is focused on producing products for industry. Now, this has something to do with the German influence. Long before we became so technologically smart, William James wrote of "the various ideals of education that are prevalent in the different countries,..... The German universities are proud of the number of young specialists whom they turn out every year," We adopted that education in 1917 and fully dropped the education for citizen we had in 1958. We are experiencing the social, economic, and political ramifications of that change. Adopting that change in education goes with adopting Prussian military bureaucracy and applying it to citizens, but I think it is futile for me to continue giving this explanation because obviously the problem is my prejudice against the Germans/Prussians and there is nothing to say about them but to praise them. :rage: The difference between specializing people and preparing them to be a cog in the machine, a mechanical society, and education for well-rounded individual growth, does not need to be considered, right?
I have chosen to avoid Historium and I don't want to deal with the problem here.
The thing is that few explain the present by referring to the 19th Century, where you really had Prussia. I think you correctly understand that late 19th Century America sought example from Prussia / Germany, but in the post WW2 era this idea is very rare. Basically the present start post WW2, where the US finds itself in the dominant position (with nearly every other possible competitor in ruins). This causes the focus to be in the purely domestic scene and other countries being influenced by the US.
You speak of history and what war did to Egypt, Athens, Roman, the Aztecs, or any civilization that is victorious in war. I am speaking of bureaucratic order and the New World Order replacing the old world order. I have given up on anyone understanding the less exciting subject of bureaucratic order and what it has to do to fundamentally changing our experience of life.
Questions like that arise from a wrong understanding of Christian teachings. The Bible says:
"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" (1 Timothy 5:8).
A government's first duty is to look after its own population. Charity and hospitality are OK but not when they are applied to the detriment of the giver or host, otherwise we're rewarding good with evil.
Immigration is also a matter of justice. How is it just for one population to be replaced and its territory to be taken over by another?
Or perhaps explaining your reasoning? People are quite open to new ideas here in PF.
That is sweet, and the invitation is like putting a horse at the starting gate of a race track. I have no idea how to get people interested in the fact that bureaucratic organization is far more important than who sits in the seats of power. I think we can make this compliant with the thread.
While I think we have a lot to learn from history, I agree with Thomas Jefferson about the importance of our future. Not just our future in the next 5 years but the future beyond our time on earth. Religion seems to want to hold people in the past, and democracy is about creating a better future. Bureaucracy is vital to what can be done. The bureaucracy of our forefathers was extremely weak compared to the bureaucracy we have today and perhaps this is essential to created heaven on earth? Evolving bureaucracy that manages every aspect of our lives can be a heaven or hell. We could not have Social Security and other such programs if we had not adopted the Prussian model of bureaucracy. But we need to be aware that this can lead to heaven or hell.
I disagree with "Human beings of equal moral value should be free to move about the world to maximize The value of their lives, as they define it." and agree with Quoting Apollodorus
We are not of equal moral value. Our cultures make us very different from each other. The US handled the immigration problem by Americanizing them in the schools. It was thought the immigrant parents with no democratic experience would learn from their children.
When growing up, I remember if an uninvited guest came for dinner and there was not enough to feed everyone, my mother went without dinner. As a grown woman I became an extension of my husband's and children's needs and wants and without them, I had no identity. I think this was expected of women and it worked as long as the woman's basic needs for food and shelter were met. The man was the provider and defender of the family.
The bureaucracy over us is the father and today I don't think it is a good idea to give all our power to the government as a woman of old gave the male head of the house all the power. Guests should not come to dinner without an invitation. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not a right to take what is mine. They do not get my dinner nor my bed, and I do not assume I can walk into people's homes uninvited and take their dinner and their bed.
Did you cite the author John Kekes whos essay "A Reasonable Alternative to Egalitarianism" was published in "Debates in Political Philosophy"? You quoted him word for word here.
All humans have an equal basic moral status. They possess the same fundamental rights, and the comparable interests of each person should count the same in calculations that determine social policy....