immigration
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
VonVulcan
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Tacoma, Wa, USA
- Contact:
immigration
I found it interesting that the wikipedia note mentioned on the video site states Roy Beck has links to racist group. I looked into it and found this from Souther Poverty Law center (splcenter.org)
-------------------------------
NumbersUSA
Arlington, Va.
www.numbersusa.com/home.html
Directed by Roy Beck, who has written extensively on environmental and financial issues, NumbersUSA is the most reasoned of the anti-immigration groups, offering information on the relationship between immigration and the environment.
In fact, Beck makes a statement on his web site that NumbersUSA is not intended to bash immigrants or have racial overtones. Still, his group supports the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the American Immigration Control Foundation in their immigrant-bashing billboard campaign.
Beck also is the Washington editor of The Social Contract, a quarterly journal that has published articles by \"white nationalists\" like Samuel Francis, who was fired from the conservative Washington Times after writing a racially inflammatory column, and James Lubinskas, a contributing editor for the racist American Renaissance magazine.
Beck's web site includes an extensive listing of other anti-immigration groups.
--------------------------------
Any thoughts regarding the content of the clip?
VV
Here's something to think about. Some people, like Peter Singer (as in Famine, Affluence, and Morality), would deny that we have a moral obligation to maintain the American way of life when there are still people dying of starvation in the world.
\"f it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it. An application of this principle would be as follows: if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.\"
. . .
\"Since the situation appears to be that very few people are likely to give substantial amounts, it follows that I and everyone else in similar circumstances ought to give as much as possible, that is, at least up to the point at which by giving more one would begin to cause serious suffering for oneself and one's dependents - perhaps even beyond this point to the point of marginal utility, at which by giving more one would cause oneself and one's dependents as much suffering as one would prevent...\"
. . .
\"I would argue against [the] view that we are morally entitled to give greater weight to our own interests and purposes simply because they are our own. This view seems to me contrary to the idea, now widely shared by moral philosophers, that some element of impartiality or universalizability is inherent in the very notion of a moral judgment... in normal circumstances, it may be better for everyone if we recognize that each of us will be primarily responsible for running our own lives and only secondarily responsible for others. This, however, is not a moral ultimate, but a secondary principle that derives from consideration of how a society may best order its affairs, given the limits of altruism in human beings. Such secondary principles are, I think, swept aside by the extreme evil of people starving to death.\"
Singer would probably agree with your linkee's argument that imigration is not the best way of going about ending world hunger, but since today's political question concerning immigration isn't, \"Should we curtail immigration to help more people in better ways?\" but instead, \"Should we curtail immigration to help maintain the American way of life?\" it would seem to be the case that under his thinking we should at least keep our doors open until a better relief program is available to immediately replace it.
The important question here is: To what extent are we ethically obligated to be patriots, to root for the home team, and to serve our own and loved one's interests? Clearly Singer would say none except insofar as it is the best good for everyone. But I think that whatever the answer to this question is, we are all still much too hesitant to muddy our clothing during this time of dire evil. What should we do about this?
\"f it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it. An application of this principle would be as follows: if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.\"
. . .
\"Since the situation appears to be that very few people are likely to give substantial amounts, it follows that I and everyone else in similar circumstances ought to give as much as possible, that is, at least up to the point at which by giving more one would begin to cause serious suffering for oneself and one's dependents - perhaps even beyond this point to the point of marginal utility, at which by giving more one would cause oneself and one's dependents as much suffering as one would prevent...\"
. . .
\"I would argue against [the] view that we are morally entitled to give greater weight to our own interests and purposes simply because they are our own. This view seems to me contrary to the idea, now widely shared by moral philosophers, that some element of impartiality or universalizability is inherent in the very notion of a moral judgment... in normal circumstances, it may be better for everyone if we recognize that each of us will be primarily responsible for running our own lives and only secondarily responsible for others. This, however, is not a moral ultimate, but a secondary principle that derives from consideration of how a society may best order its affairs, given the limits of altruism in human beings. Such secondary principles are, I think, swept aside by the extreme evil of people starving to death.\"
Singer would probably agree with your linkee's argument that imigration is not the best way of going about ending world hunger, but since today's political question concerning immigration isn't, \"Should we curtail immigration to help more people in better ways?\" but instead, \"Should we curtail immigration to help maintain the American way of life?\" it would seem to be the case that under his thinking we should at least keep our doors open until a better relief program is available to immediately replace it.
The important question here is: To what extent are we ethically obligated to be patriots, to root for the home team, and to serve our own and loved one's interests? Clearly Singer would say none except insofar as it is the best good for everyone. But I think that whatever the answer to this question is, we are all still much too hesitant to muddy our clothing during this time of dire evil. What should we do about this?
-
Foil
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:31 pm
- Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re:
Good post. I've actually been thinking about this, or something like this, recently.Jeff250 wrote:Here's something to think about. [Peter Singer said:]"I would argue against [the] view that we are morally entitled to give greater weight to our own interests and purposes simply because they are our own. ..."
...
The important question here is: To what extent are we ethically obligated to be patriots, to root for the home team, and to serve our own and loved one's interests? Clearly Singer would say none except insofar as it is the best good for everyone. But I think that whatever the answer to this question is, we are all still much too hesitant to muddy our clothing during this time of dire evil. What should we do about this?
A few months ago, my church hosted an open panel-discussion about immigration. Given the hot-button issues, and the fact that the panel included politicians, immigrants, and immigration workers, it was handled very well. Anyway, what ended up being the most interesting (and disturbing) to me was how most of the arguments against immigration boiled down to "protecting our American way/interests/finances".
I was also talking with a co-worker about a year ago about the same issue. I think he's overall a good guy, but it shocked me to hear him say, "^&*( the rest of the world, let 'em die, we should be looking out for number one." What's worse, most of my other co-workers agreed with him.
I know that it's natural to look primarily to one's own family/community/country, but where does it cross the line from "protecting ourselves" to "hoarding" and "shielding our resources from those who need it?"
From a personal perspective, I have to admit that I've gotten used to my way of life. I'm not sure I have the courage to help others as much as I could or should, as it might require a change of lifestyle.
From a national perspective, I think it's the same. As much as we can, we have a moral obligation to provide opportunity to those in need, even if it requires sacrifice.
So, to answer the first question, I believe we are ethically obligated to protect ourselves from criminals and terrorists entering our country, but we are also breaking our moral duty to help those who need it by curtailing immigration.
As to the second question, "So what should we do?", I'm honestly not sure. I don't think I know enough about the complexities of immigration law to even begin suggesting an answer.