Skip to main content

I Still Don't Care About Illegal Immigration

And I'll tell you why. This immigration system is still a brutally unfair racial quota system, that basically doesn't allow very many people in general to come to the United States legally. If that weren't enough, I have to somehow take Donald Trump morally seriously, when he wants to make it even harder to legally immigrate to the United States. If I were running from drug gangs in Mexico or Central America, or trying to escape crushing poverty, yeah, I might sneak across the border. If we had any sort of sensible immigration policy that was generous, just, and fair, I might be more inclined to take a more hard-line position. Also, to treat asylum-seekers the same as those who illegally cross the border, is unconscionable and indefensible. I know it's a right-wing party game to make fun of "international" anything, but if I were in charge, the United States would not even be contemplating breaking international law. I don't think we should act like pariahs, even if we are big enough that no one else in the world could punish us.

I notice also an absurd tendency in the reactionary right-wing rhetoric to play Hispanics and African-Americans against one another, to defend this indefensible immigration restrictionism. I'm sure Prager "University" is planning a video to this effect right now.

I believe in borders, by the way. I just think ours should be much more porous than they are right now. Personally, I don't get anxious by studies that purportedly show that Americans will be majority non-white in the near future. I've always believed that we were a nation founded on principles, not on ethnic identity. I do think that immigrants and potential immigrants should respect this country and its traditions, provided that they are good. We have a tradition of racism and bigotry, however, and a few too many people think that is the tradition we ought to hold onto as Americans. "Sad!," as a certain highly placed person might say.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Post a Comment
Read more
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
17 comments
Read more

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...
Post a Comment
Read more