... to suggest that our immigration laws should reflect the words displayed at the foot of the statue of liberty?
Would it be out of line...
Posts
Total:
54
For ease of reference here is the entire sonnet
The New Collosus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
-Emma Lazarus (1849–1887)
559 days later
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't think it'd be out of line, but that doesn't mean everyone else has the same opinion.
According to Wikipedia, she wrote the poem in 1883, more than a hundred years after 1776, and America's Declaration or Independence.
. . . I don't think one can say without reservation, that America was formed with a unified understanding and agreement of the acceptance and encouragement of any and all immigrants to America.
Though it seems a popular opinion, I'd say.
One that many of it's citizens and public servants have spoken with great passion about, throughout America's history.
And, in many nations of old.
For when humans less populously covered the Earth, they were wisely viewed by rulers as a source of power and influence. That made colonizing hinterlands possible, filling up the ranks of armies, supporting the economy, the holding and pushing of lands already populated.
Whether China in it's many occurrences of divided states, seeking advantage over one another,
Or Rome expanding outward throughout the world, until the hearts and spirits of it's people had changed, and given in more to being 'paid for their duty to their people, given in more to 'indulging themselves, than tempering themselves. Rambling a bit.
Anyway, the opposition,
America no longer possesses the wild west, has boomed in population.
And even when it was growing, many of it's people did not appreciate newcomers not of their ilk or culture, heritage or nature.
Not saying I 'support that, just noting humans have a prevalence to tribalism.
And it seems a reasonable enough value for people to assume to my way of thinking, though I prefer individualism.
Even if Emma Lazarus wrote a poem, it doesn't mean everyone agrees with it.
-->
@Lemming
Good enough for me. Not everyone agrees. There doesn't seem to be any flat line to which any group agrees on all things in all situations. I honestly wrote this a long time ago and I've done some introspection and this poem is a nice sentiment but it isn't really what I'm trying to say. I think I'm trying to say that I am of the opinion that in general open borders are preferable to me only limiting them if there is a specific need such as during a pandemic. America and american immigration policy is incidental whether it is in agreeable with this opinion or not.
-->
@secularmerlin
Should we allow a random poem from over a century ago to dictate our immigration policy? Nope. It is no kind of foundational government document.
The Statue of Liberty was given to us by France to celebrate our freedom from Britain- something entirely unrelated to immigration.
-->
@secularmerlin
When you say open borders, what do you mean by that?
Only closed border I can think of off the top of my head would be that one tribe on an island somewhere, that kills anyone who tries to talk to them.
Though likely there's some/many countries with rather closed borders I simply haven't read about.
When people say open borders, what I hear somehow, is 'unregulated borders.
. . .
I 'am fond of necromancing old posts, though I 'do do it out of an interest in the topics.
-->
@Lemming
When you say open borders, what do you mean by that?Only closed border I can think of off the top of my head would be that one tribe on an island somewhere, that kills anyone who tries to talk to them.Though likely there's some/many countries with rather closed borders I simply haven't read about.When people say open borders, what I hear somehow, is 'unregulated borders.
Well when we get right down to it unregulated borders are in general preferable to regulated borders unless we have a specific reason to regulate them. This is based entirely upon my use of human empathy. It doesn't feel good to be shut out so no one should be shut out without a damn good reason.
Now lots of borders are regulated. The borders of a liquor store may be regulated to prevent underage persons from buying alchohol for example. Sometimes there is a good reason and sometimes there isn't. Most regulation of borders between countries I feel in the case of humans passing over those borders is unnecessary. At most the regulation of dangerous materials crossing borders makes sense but not people. I propose that in order to make this distinction we put ourselves in the shoes of people who wish to cross the border. If it. Would be unjust for you to be prevented from crossing maybe it is just unjust.
-->
@secularmerlin
Well when we get right down to it unregulated borders are in general preferable to regulated borders unless we have a specific reason to regulate them. This is based entirely upon my use of human empathy. It doesn't feel good to be shut out so no one should be shut out without a damn good reason.Now lots of borders are regulated. The borders of a liquor store may be regulated to prevent underage persons from buying alchohol for example. Sometimes there is a good reason and sometimes there isn't. Most regulation of borders between countries I feel in the case of humans passing over those borders is unnecessary. At most the regulation of dangerous materials crossing borders makes sense but not people. I propose that in order to make this distinction we put ourselves in the shoes of people who wish to cross the border. If it. Would be unjust for you to be prevented from crossing maybe it is just unjust.
I suppose I can understand such a point of view, though I disagree with it.
To me it's. . A taste similar to Anarchism, the idealistic type that some people speak of.
Just doesn't seem functional to me.
. . .
Perhaps I take too 'pessimistic of a view, but I see the world, and nations, as one of adversaries, enemies, currently anyhow. Clans and tribes in many countries, were once rivals, until they united together into countries, by means of what they held in common. Language, culture, other enemies.
It seems to me, to a countries advantage, to know who foreign individuals are, attempting to gain entry, and if they choose. Refuse them entry, whether for reasons or suspicions. Criminal history, Nationalism, Extreme political stances, would be ones that come to mind that seem reasonable for the USA to refuse entry.
Other countries, could go further for more totalitarian and extreme reasons themselves.
Whether because of culture, race, intelligence, money, ability, genetics. (Not saying I would or wouldn't support such reasons, just that some nations could impose them, and some people find them reasonable)
Countries/Communities/Governments, 'tend to have a duty to it's people I'd say.
Two duties that occur to me in this moment, are it's people's safety, and their needs.
Without vetting people before their entry, ensuring that they have a sense of duty to their new country, an understanding of it's laws.
I have difficulty in seeing how it is right, to just let them in.
. .
Though perhaps many citizens 'already in the country, may not meet such standards themselves.
I worry a 'bit about how it reminds me of those Jim Crow pre-voting tests, that surely a great many of the white people would not have been able to pass.
Mm,
One makes some allowances for one's own tribe.
I'd say we have open borders between 'our states and cities in the USA, same with Canada and having open borders between 'it's provinces and cities, I assume.
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm pretty sure the poem was written well before FDR turned the country into a welfare state.
Begging the huddled poor all over the globe to come partake of tax funded welfare is a national disaster asking for crippling insolvency.
“It is a privilege to become an American, not a right, for anybody who is not already an American citizen,”
“It is a privilege we’ve offered to people all around the world for the entire duration of our history, but that privilege starts with certain expectations.”
"Immigrants should not be a burden on the taxpayers or the government.”
Illegal immigration and “open borders” advocates almost went into collective cardiac arrest earlier this month when President Trump announced new LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration policies. Let’s never forget to distinguish between immigrants who do it the right way — like my late wife, Consuelo, a native of Mexico — and those who violate our laws and sovereignty by sneaking across the border.
As usual, the illegal immigration advocates quoted the outdated Emma Lazarus poem on the Statue of Liberty inviting the world’s “tired, poor and huddled masses” to emigrate to the United States. Well, what was good for the U.S. in 1883, when that poem was written, isn’t necessarily good for us 134 years later. Today, we don’t need or want “the wretched refuse of their teeming shores.” When it comes to immigration, we want the world’s best and brightest.
I know my point of view is politically incorrect, but if you think about it, Trump’s new merit-based legal immigration proposal is a logical, sensible approach to a complex policy issue. As USA Today explained, Trump’s plan would “take cues from Australia and Canada … to end the long-held practice of U.S. citizens sponsoring parents, siblings and adult children for permanent residence and ultimate citizenship.”
Instead, “a ‘merit-based’ system would grade foreign applicants on their potential contributions to the economy … and favor those with advanced education, English proficiency and a stellar work history.” What’s wrong with that? If a merit-based immigration system is good enough for Australia and Canada, why isn’t it also good enough for the U.S.?
Co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia, the new system would switch from a family-based policy to one based on economic value to the U.S. In other words, this policy would stem the flow of undereducated, unskilled immigrants — Lazarus’ “wretched refuse” — and replace them with well educated, skilled, English-speaking immigrants who believe in the American Dream. Unsurprisingly, the English requirement sparked a bitter argument in the White House Press Room between Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller and Jim Acosta of left-leaning CNN, who quoted the Lazarus poem to accuse Miller and the president of “racism.”
That’s always the response of liberal Democrats when anyone advocates policies they don’t agree with, or when we criticize former President Obama’s policies. “Racism!” they shout without addressing the substance of the policies under discussion. I have faced this kind of knee-jerk criticism from self-styled “progressives” (i.e. socialists), but their empty words bounce off me like water off a duck’s back.
According to USA Today, “Critics argued that the workers Trump said he’s trying to help would be hurt most by the proposal.” In my opinion, this criticism could be countered by canceling proposed drastic cuts in legal immigration and establishing a new guest worker program similar to the old Bracero Program where seasonal workers could come to the U.S. for specified periods of time as long as they promised to return to their home countries. Fair enough.
As for illegal immigration, the Trump administration’s tough enforcement policy has already cut it in half along the U.S.-Mexico border and the president’s famous “beautiful border wall” — which will be paid for by American taxpayers, not Mexico, as he promised — will cut illegal immigration even further. And the Trump White House strongly supports a revitalized Border Patrol that’s aggressively pursuing violent drug and human trafficking gangs like MS-13. All of this is good news to those of us who support a merit-based LEGAL immigration system and oppose ILLEGAL immigration as a threat to our national security.
-->
@bmdrocks21
This is why entertainers should shut up and entertain.
-->
@Lemming
Tribalism and the labeling of people outside your tribe as the "other" is actually the very thing I'm against.
-->
@secularmerlin
I suppose I can understand that.
But it seems such a strong pull within humans, one I feel myself.
That I find it difficult to discount as a variable, or as a value held.
One feels loyalty, and places value in their history and culture.
Parts they identify as similar to them.
. . Might be better for 'humans to be more inclusive, value other humans for their personhood and humanity, rather than their trappings of culture and identifiers.
I think they might get there some day regarding Earth.
But I suspect a bit, the exercise will have to be repeated if we make or encounter aliens.
Maybe more likely they convert/homogenize, than accept though.
. . . And why 'should different values and being of others be accepted, I wonder a bit to myself.
Assuming that they're values and being different enough that one finds them unacceptable.
-->
@Lemming
I have a lot of impulses and desires that are in conflict with my moral intuition. Their pull can be very strong. That does not mean I should give in to these baser impulses or consider them to be "values".
As for pride and loyalty to culture and history every culture has things in its history to be proud. Every culture also seems to have some pretty horrible things in their history.
-->
@secularmerlin
Well, I 'do respect such ideals, as the ones you speak.
-->
@Lemming
What does you objection then become?
-->
@secularmerlin
My 'objection isn't quite fully formed, exists nebulously at the moment I'd say.
'Considered speaking it earlier, but seemed a bit rambling incoherent to be worth saying,
Here's my try though.
There's no accounting for taste, perhaps.
Not as an undeniable rule, but of what such a phrase speaks.
What an individual or people place value upon.
What such people 'are, and strive for as a result of that.
Hm, what are the right words. .
Large flaw of mine is having lazed thoughts, not minding the haze that obscures them, enough to blow it away, or reason them further in. Often I see their edges, the tips of thought, and go with my intuition.
A person's or groups values, based upon what 'they or a culture 'are.
What they might strive toward.
. . .
People speak of higher 'values at times, whether religion, some line of logic.
Identify some piece of morality or methodology of logic as being more righteous than the others.
, Ah but my bent is nihilism/subjectivism/relativism.
Discounting the objective value of much that is spoken, but being a human, must make decisions in life, tread along paths.
. . .
Though I can acknowledge your ideal as valid, and desire and act upon it to a degree in life myself.
When I'm not valuing 'myself above others,
I value my tribe.
I value that my tribe be a humane one, but not to the point that it loses out, or disappears.
People value what they value,
Though with causation, sure there's reasons for such.
edit
Mm, actually that 'still doesn't explain my reasoning I suppose.
Just say's, eh, arbitrary, I'm a nihilist.
. . .
I was raised to appreciate loyalty to my tribe, so it's a value I hold.
-->
@Lemming
People value what they value,
What is the difference between a value and a vice other than popular opinion?
-->
@secularmerlin
A persons position/perspective/line of logic.
Maybe.
edit,
Also their inclinations.
edit,
Water flows where the channels cut.
-->
@secularmerlin
Perhaps we should codify this as a constitutional amendment.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
-->
@Lemming
Large flaw of mine is having lazed thoughts, not minding the haze that obscures them, enough to blow it away, or reason them further in. Often I see their edges, the tips of thought, and go with my intuition.
Not so much a "flaw" as it is, THE ORIGIN OF HYPOTHESIS.
-->
@3RU7AL
Large flaw of mine is having lazed thoughts, not minding the haze that obscures them, enough to blow it away, or reason them further in. Often I see their edges, the tips of thought, and go with my intuition.Not so much a "flaw" as it is, THE ORIGIN OF HYPOTHESIS.
If I 'developed the hypothesis more often, it wouldn't be such a flaw.
-->
@Lemming
Identify some piece of morality or methodology of logic as being more righteous than the others., Ah but my bent is nihilism/subjectivism/relativism.
ALL CULTS DECRY HYPOCRISY.
AND AS SUCH, ARE DE FACTO CONSCRIPTS OF LOGICAL-COHERENCE.
-->
@Lemming
If I 'developed the hypothesis more often, it wouldn't be such a flaw.
Perhaps, A PROTO-HYPOTHESIS.
-->
@3RU7AL
'Cheating cults, don't mind hypocrisy so much I'd say,
But they also have difficulty in 'lasting as long as groups lacking hypocrisy.
I think.
-->
@Lemming
Though I can acknowledge your ideal as valid, and desire and act upon it to a degree in life myself.When I'm not valuing 'myself above others,I value my tribe.I value that my tribe be a humane one, but not to the point that it loses out, or disappears.People value what they value,Though with causation, sure there's reasons for such.
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY (TRIBE)
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
-->
@Lemming
'Cheating cults, don't mind hypocrisy so much I'd say,
THE ULTIMATE ACT OF SABOTAGE (REVOLT) IS TO "FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW".
-->
@Lemming
A persons position/perspective/line of logic. Maybe.
That sounds less than useful for determining more than one's personal ethics which is necessarily divorced from any tribe/city/nation/collective's official policy.
May I suggest that in order have a reasonable discussion we should agree to some standard that is more or less acceptable to both of us for the purposes of this discussion.
May I suggest that if we are discussing American rules and regulations and discussing ought rather than is that we examine the most basic axiom of national policy. Would you agree with this standard
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Accepting that any creator is undemonstrated and in any case unnecessary to hold the other presented "truths" as "self evident".
To me this seems like the base line that all other legislation is "supposed" to be predicated on. That this does not seem to always be the case notwithstanding.
-->
@secularmerlin
People value what they value,What is the difference between a value and a vice other than popular opinion?
Whether someone values a base emotional cue, or a complex reasoning of function,
What's the difference?
Is my basic reply maybe.
Sometimes it feels a bit arbitrary how people value their conclusions to me.
Not that they don't have reasons for their beliefs,
But that an egoist, or a altruist,
Could both possess complex reasons for their values.
It's similar to how I remark to myself, how highly intelligent people can exist on different sides of questions.
What was so remarkably different I wonder to myself, between the low brow and the high brow.
So perhaps, I don't much make effort to develop beyond the low brow.
-->
@secularmerlin
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all sentient beings are equal, that they are endowed by their fellow sentient beings with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Is this any better?
-->
@secularmerlin
May I suggest that if we are discussing American rules and regulations and discussing ought rather than is that we examine the most basic axiom of national policy. Would you agree with this standard
That's fair, though there are subcurrents/assumptions/understandings of law and national policy, I'd argue.
Context, I mean, one of the problems of dogma, and the written word.