Critiquing the boarder wall for ( Br John . )

More
25 Jan 2020 23:05 #348828 by Alexandre Orion
I'm just curious...

Of anyone and everyone holding an opinion one way or the other about immigration (which usually doesn't turn out to cost as much as some "studies" suggest - one always has to consider who funded the study and to what conclusion their investment leans toward), how many have actually opened a volume of political philosophy (say, John Rawls, for example, but a 500 year old edition of Michel de Montaigne would work just as well -- or Adam Smith, or John Locke, or ...) ? Or, is the opinion based on CNN or just common-stock, popularist notions about the supremacy of America and who should or shouldn't get to live there.

I lived there for 14 years and found it abysmal. Came back to Europe where we have other un-managable problems, including immigration. But here, it is a social problem with a forward-seeking perspective. America cannot go back to the pre-Wilson isolationist mindset. That is a century-old, backward-wishing (Earth has about 5 times the population as it did then) nightmare worse than the "American Dream" has become. I was actually born in Illinois but didn't have too much of a problem getting out. I do find it interesting though that in order to renounce US citizenship (I burnt my American passport, not having a flag handy...), there is a cost of about $ 2 500 just to submit the forms.

Maybe that wall is really designed to keep you all in, rather than the others out ? A little reminiscent of the Soviet bloc, don't you think ?

Another interesting question (which I don't have an answer to, I just feel the question worth posing) would be : just because one is born in the United States, what gives that person more of a right to its benefits (sic) than someone not born in the United States who may need those benefits even more ? What are we talking about when we are talking about "rights" anyway ? Human beings are born with a lot of evolutionary and cultural heritage which most people do not give very much thought to. Before deciding on what someone else deserves, it is a good idea to decide what one actually deserves oneself. By the way, no surgeon in the galaxy can go in and take out your "rights" - they are not a part of you.

Locke wrote of inalienable rights (an accord of things which human beings ought to protect for and by one another for us to have a civilised (or reasonably so anyway) society. These were "Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Property" (not "Happiness"). By this, it was meant that each human being born on Earth ought to have the right to a set of conditions that does not jeapordise the vital experience itself. In simpler terms, we ought not kill one another (neither by guns nor by starvation). One ought to have the liberty to engage in meaningful endeavours unimpeded by the notion of merit (social class, caste or any other arbitrary filtre). Naturally, my liberty is bounded by at what point it starts interfering with the liberty of someone else. This is where we start getting into the messy muck of accepted inequalities.

The pursuit of Property was not a call to the ambition of acquiring a lot of possessions. What Locke meant by that was merely that by the labour of one's hands, one ought have a share in the ownership - or at least the benefit - of the production. It was Thomas Jefferson who changed it to "the pursuit of Happiness", and though Jefferson was a clever fellow, he got that one quite wrong. Happiness cannot be pursued, it can only occur in momentary, conditional instances.

So, what's the wall all about ? Keeping people from the inalienable "rights" of Life, Liberty and pursuit of Property (usually illegal immigrants DO indeed work with their hands -- sometimes a lot harder and longer than US citizens) ? That seems pretty ignoble. Or is it to keep US citizens "in" -- if only psychologically mesmerised to believe they live in a realised Utopia where everyone would want to live (prosperity notwithstanding) ?

Just a few thoughts to ponder...

Chaque homme a des devoirs envers l'homme en tant qu'homme.
~ Henri Bergson
The following user(s) said Thank You: Rex

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Jan 2020 23:41 #348831 by Alexandre Orion
Just another quick question :

Why all the talk about "illegal immigrants" instead of calling these people "refugees" ? Why would they go to the United States where they are treated as criminals almost in as much of a stead as what they are fleeing from ?

Perhaps the inscription on the Statue of Liberty is a bit misleading ? Maybe ... ?

Chaque homme a des devoirs envers l'homme en tant qu'homme.
~ Henri Bergson

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Jan 2020 00:38 #348836 by Br. John

Alexandre Orion wrote: Just another quick question :

Why all the talk about "illegal immigrants" instead of calling these people "refugees" ? Why would they go to the United States where they are treated as criminals almost in as much of a stead as what they are fleeing from ?

Perhaps the inscription on the Statue of Liberty is a bit misleading ? Maybe ... ?


I'm using a precise legal term. I pointed out that most border crossing illegal immigrants today are minors from Central America simply trying to stay alive. They are mostly starving (refugees). There are plenty of illegal immigrants who are certainly not refugees though. This is not a debate about immigration policy and law.

Assuming the goal is to keep people from illegally crossing the border from Mexico into the US, a wall either is or is not the best way to do it.

Founder of The Order

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Jan 2020 00:42 - 26 Jan 2020 00:50 #348837 by Alethea Thompson
After a LOT of research into this topic for a college paper, I’m of the opinion this project has more merit than the Physical Wall proposed by Trump:

www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/...ion-arizona-64978546
Last edit: 26 Jan 2020 00:50 by Alethea Thompson.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Jan 2020 04:24 - 26 Jan 2020 04:38 #348842 by Adder
The way its defined here is a refugee is one seeking political asylum (legitimately). Its not an assessment of wealth, health or hardship at their point of departure but danger from their own country, ie forced displacement.

Why illegal... here it's considered illegal to cross international borders without permission unless one us a refugee. Asylum seekers are processed to determine legitimacy as refugees. So illegitimate refugees seek to avoid the system by paying criminal enterprise known as people smugglers, which is the same activity as drug and slave trades, and also theoretically it's a security risk for terrorism etc.

Dealing with people already in country is another issue. There is no need to conflate them unless considering budgetary appropriations IMO. But why illegal if in country, other then breaking immigration law about entry or residence limits, someone is also breaking the law for tax avoidance I'd imagine, at a minimum? Another issue is the extent of illegal activity by someone out of system, and unknown risks freak those responsible for the system and its dependants out a bit.

So why limit refugees to political asylum, because that is what a nation is, a system of laws to build prosperity to its lawful citizens.. not the world's population.

I duuno if a wall will work, but the current system appears not to be either.

Knight ~ introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist. Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
Last edit: 26 Jan 2020 04:38 by Adder.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Malicious

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Jan 2020 05:19 #348843 by Alexandre Orion

Br. John wrote:

Alexandre Orion wrote: Just another quick question :

Why all the talk about "illegal immigrants" instead of calling these people "refugees" ? Why would they go to the United States where they are treated as criminals almost in as much of a stead as what they are fleeing from ?

Perhaps the inscription on the Statue of Liberty is a bit misleading ? Maybe ... ?


I'm using a precise legal term. I pointed out that most border crossing illegal immigrants today are minors from Central America simply trying to stay alive. They are mostly starving (refugees). There are plenty of illegal immigrants who are certainly not refugees though. This is not a debate about immigration policy and law.

Assuming the goal is to keep people from illegally crossing the border from Mexico into the US, a wall either is or is not the best way to do it.



Yes, I appreciate the precision of the legal term, although I would hesitate to make much of a distinction between "refugee" and "illegal immigrant" since - even if they are not seeking refuge from political/legislative oppression in their home state - they are probably (in most cases) trying to generate income which they couldn't by staying home. In short - and not a precise legal term at all -, I would suggest that they would only take such a risk if they were seeking refuge from extreme poverty.

It is also very doubtful that people can legally and from their home states apply for visas and work-entry status. I'm sorry if it looks like I'm playing with semantics here - I'm not - but trying to employ semantics in its proper linguistic function.

The Berlin Wall didn't work out so very well and it was a much less elaborate structure. Not only would the measure be grossly ineffective (as Carlos has suggested), but indeed, a construction of such envergure would be an environmentally catastrophic enterprise.

Chaque homme a des devoirs envers l'homme en tant qu'homme.
~ Henri Bergson

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Jan 2020 05:32 #348844 by Rex
I mean what's the threshold in your opinion (bracketing out the legal determination of refugee status) which one must meet to be considered a refugee rather than an opportunist?

Also at what point does a nation need to balance the interests of its constituents (read: money and convenience) versus humanitarian ideals? Is it justifiable to go to war over refugees?

IP Team Lead
TM: Carlos Martinez
ὁ δὲ ἀμυχηδόν νεξέταστος βίος γίγνομαι βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Jan 2020 08:15 #348848 by TheDude
Some general glaring issues with the wall:
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]
The following user(s) said Thank You: ZealotX

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Jan 2020 11:51 #348857 by Geni Jeuls

TheDude wrote: Some general glaring issues with the wall:

Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]


Not to mention a VAST majority of illegal immigrants come legally via airplane and just... overstay their visa. Can't build a wall tall enough to keep out airplanes.

boo
The following user(s) said Thank You: TheDude, Rex

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
26 Jan 2020 14:00 #348859 by Carlos.Martinez3
I never really understand the wall idea. Seems to me it will be built so no one has to watch it. Just me but walls arnt for security... that’s what the people do. Just my 2 cents.

Contact The Clergy
Pastor of Temple of the Jedi Order
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Block
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: KobosBrick