Explore Group
- Topics
- Members
-
-
-
Twitter
-
Digg
-
Do we need religion to have ethics? Is it possible that a world without religion can be, on the whole, a better place to live?
- Created by Zach West
- Go to Most Recent
Recommend a comment by clicking 
-
Xavier,
Recommend
I have developed a type of schizophrenia where at one minute I'm a conservative and the next minute a left wing liberal. It just sweeps over me like a shimmering wave and then viola, I'm flipped and I am then what I am and there's nothing to do about it until the next flip. :>)
-
Everett said...
1 Recommendation
Perhaps right thinking society can devise a way to harness the productivity of the few and divert the proceeds to the disadvantaged by finding a way to harness them analogous to the way ants have harnessed aphids who suck the juices from plant stems which they in turn take from the aphids.
The crux of that idea is that the producers that grow wealthy can not help doing what they do to increase production, so they will do so if one only holds a carrot before their nose before unloading their wealth and setting them forth on their next day's work.
.................................................................................
Everett, you haven't been watching. Your wish has come true. The government has increasingly meddled in the detailed functioning of the economy to both attempt to have it produce more of what it determines is appropriate and to suck the juices from it to give the disadvantaged the particular goods and services that it determines are good for them.
It's much worse than the ants for they only take the juices that aphids suck. Government now regulates those ants towards the plants it, the government, determines provide more juices AND of the right flavors, flavors that it, the government in its infinite wisdom has determined you and I will enjoy more. The market be darn.
If you don't believe me look carefully at the new healthcare law. It contains all kinds of carrots to make sure large health conglomerates with higher productivity and thus lower costs develop, and it poisons the small providers. Then it also tells you what kind of sex and how is good for you--protected. And don't get your hopes high that the Supremes may discontinue the practice. At best they will only set back a few years what already has been happening through eligibility and price controls in Medicare and Medicaid.
They could be taxing the aphids and distributing the juices directly but instead they know better what plants to get juice from and what flavors you and I want.
Look also at the failed attempt with cap and trade, which instead of legislating in one full swoop they are now implementing piecemeal through legislation or executive decree. They could just hike the taxes on carbon but they know better what forms are more productive--out is West Virginia, in is Solyndra--and better for you and I--the Volt.
No my friend, it is not a matter of "perhaps...devising." The future is here courtesy of the Commerce Clause; who knew protecting commerce and markets would produce such a bonanza. "Left wing liberal" is in so get with the program :).
Hope you are watching and learning Bradley :).
-
Xavier,
Recommend
Global warming is a side stream from the normal daily activities of reaping the fruits of the productive members of society. It is a sort of moral fish net that covers the well spring of the good life we live, i.e., the energy we need to live that life. If it can be established that living the good life that abundant energy provides is morally unacceptable because it will further down the line destroy the earth, then the moral society must choke off the use of the energy providing the good life to the morally sleeping masses. All for their own good, as well as for the good of the entire planet's ecology. The government can accomplish that by banning the means of abundant energy, if not through taxation unto death, then by EPA regulation unto death. It is all for the good of of the planet, to save the polar bears, the whales, and the mosquitoes,....wait, did I say mosquitoes....? Well, if we are to be true to the earth goddess and pure of aim and thought I guess mosquitoes must be saved too. However, if they should enjoy a calamity independent of humanity's fault I would vote for it in a flash.
-
Everett,
Recommend
Global Warming or Climate Change , unfortunately is science. the planet is warming and most probably from man made causes. As I ponder wading through 106 degrees to get to my car only to turn on the news to hear about out of control wildfires in Colorado, another climate change denier weighs in. You gotta love it.
-
-
-
1/3
Recommend
Hi Leon,
Referencing your post to me here(just getting back from a week away from the forum, sorry for the length but you got me thinking, always a dangerous thing! ;-) http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/religion-diversity-tolerance-governance/topics/do-we-need-religion-have?commentid=4319474
(Everett, best double down on your ADD meds if you’re gonna read further. Maybe add a little Prozac & turn off Fox News to calm that angry, bitter, old man thing you’ve got going on since returning? http://tiny.cc/nwwjgw ;-P ):
"Our study is in a fundamentalist Baptist church. ... I certainly can deal with the inconsistancies ... I don’t believe in the literal bible..." --- Are you saying you are a fundamentalist that doesn't take the bible literally? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? ;-)
http://tiny.cc/ak4igw
"I find it useful to consider the omnisience, omipotence, and omnipresence acting in my life..." --- Let's hope there are no supernatural wagers w/the devil involved! ;-) Tho, imo, it's just layered inconsistency upon contradiction, how exactly does the omniscient act in your life? I take it you're not seeing the omniscient creator vs free will paradox? When one contemplates all the pain & suffering born out of ignorance in this world, it's hard to fathom why any omnipotent benevolent deity would want any part of it, much less orchestrate it omnisciently, or be immersed in it omni presently? As opposed to creating One’s equals in benevolence & wisdom? Or wagering against Satan, a prior creative failing in "free will" subservience, on how successful the current iteration's subservience will work out if pressure tested? What sort of loving deity sadistically tests what is omnisciently known?
http://tiny.cc/ql4igw
Otoh, w/just a little contemplation & settling of the mind, it's quite easy to realize how adeptly the human mind, conflicted w/ignorance, can rationalize the irrational, make sense out of the nonsensical, believe in the unbelievable, know the unknowable, & continually confuse & conflate reason & absurdity. It is the foundation of superstition, the seed of supernatural based religion, the height of the egotistical mind & the ultimate creator of innumerable gods, deities, angels, demons, ghosts, idols, etc..., that demand the unabated fear, reverence, worship & unwavering subservience of all mesmerized by their spells & allure. An age old psychological means of mind over mind control allowing a select few to wield considerable power over & dominate the many, for both positive & negative purposes, which despite its seemingly obviousness & simplicity, remains uncannily effective in spite of modern day advancements & access to communication, education & science. It is a testament to the deeply ingrained & persistent nature of the inherent ignorance of the human mind. Ironically, it does collapse the paradox & explain why one might worship that which they "believe" purposely created them ignorant out of love & compassion? Or, how omnisciently granting mankind "free will" w/o appropriate wisdom, precognizant knowing that it would yield endless wars w/humans incessantly killing one another for fame, fortune & power, is some how accepted as an act of intelligent design born out of love & compassion?
http://tiny.cc/e728fw
"I don’t fully understand the statement about Job being unique in hearing God." --- But you seem to have accepted it according to your prior statement? I find this all too common in those that base their beliefs on revealed knowledge(what they have been told to believe) & simply accept what is preached to them unquestioningly at face value based on external authority. Continued…
-
2/3
Recommend
No better way to create uncritical, non thinking automatons to perpetuate the status quo & parrot their canned talking points, both in religion & politics(marketing & advertising?), via the authoritative manipulation of the human mind. It's an interesting, & quite effective mind control art form for manipulating those unaware & predisposed to it. Sociopaths seem particularly tuned into the nature of human ignorance to unquestioning gravitate towards self proclaimed authorities/experts that pander to & reinforce their worldviews.
http://tiny.cc/g3mhgw
"You would have to know me and my relationship with my family and friends to understand what ethics I gained from the experience that the study of Job reinforced." --- Your inability to articulate these ethics is telling enough. Allow me to lend a few I see. When a friend is in need, one should be there for them, even if it means just sitting silently w/them. One should not pass judgment by making assumptions that they do not know(Judge not, lest ye be judged), or one of my favorite Chinese aphorisms: "Gin3 Yin4 Si1 Chai4 Yin1, Gin3 Bat1 Yin4 Yi4 Noi6 Ji6 Saang2/Jian4 Xian2 Si1 Qi2 Yan1, Jian4 Bu4 Xian2 Er2 Nei4 Zi4 Sheng3" - "When You See Excellence Seek To Emulate It, When You See The Opposite Examine Yourself." The God depicted in Job is perfectly happy tormenting the innocent, His wager w/Satan regarding Job's allegiance to Him when faced w/great suffering has nothing to teach us about ethics, it is all about unquestioning blind subservience to the power of authority. Job 21:5 "Look at me and be stunned. Put your hand over your mouth in shock."
Imo, true ethics arise from our common humanity, empathy towards one another, & innate sense of fairness & reciprocity. As opposed to being dictated from some mystical divine origin, conceived within the human mind as a means of authority, power & control over ancient barbarians(& present day low information voters?). Confucius & Mencius realized this some 500 years prior to Jesus' birth.
http://icasl.com.br/wp-content/uploads/jesus-christ-on-the-cross-cartoon-i9.jpeg
"I am witnessing to the love and values (but not the biblical connection) that I tried to give my children being passed down to another generation." --- Are you saying you are not passing on the biblical connection(why not?) or that your children are not passing on the biblical connection(again, why not?)?
"Some day, I hope indeed pray that they will come to understand the source." --- Why not simply explain your perspective directly to them?
http://tiny.cc/eo38fw
"Incidentally Jobs issue had as more to do with Jobs torment by friends, than by God." --- Had God not wagered allowing Satan to torment Job, what would they have criticized? More here on the Christian non-judgmental paradox:
http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/religion-diversity-tolerance-governance/topics/do-we-need-religion-have?commentid=3431196
"I am comfortable with believing God as the creator, being before the Big Bang." --- Let’s check out this rabbit hole & see how far it goes…
http://tiny.cc/cxyjgw
Do you also believe Satan/angels actually exist? That a third of the angels joined w/Satan in rebellion & were cast out of Heaven to become demons? Are they here among us tempting us towards evil?
http://tiny.cc/cgxjgw
"Are black holes sybolic of the end of times and our lives when we return to our creator?" --- I suppose physical world vortexes of all shapes, sizes & configurations can be symbolic of a vast array of things returning to origin dependent on one's imagination? Dust returns to dust? Or might you prefer literal(or non literal?) billion year old carbon stardust caught up in the devil's bargain?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsGDiYlMFuk [For Keith over at Club N.! ;-)]
Continued…
-
3/3
1 Recommendation
"Subhuti - "How does one conquer greed, anger, and stupidity?" LEE Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself" - The Great Commnadment" --- 2 Corinthians 6:15 What harmony can there be between Christ and the devil? How can a believer be a partner with an unbeliever? --- Love your neighbor as yourself but beware all those who do not believe & think as you do! Seems a bit one sided? What if the devil is your neighbor? ;-)
Ironically, Buddhism considers all dharma, including Christianity, as Buddhist dharma. But, as discussed earlier, I'm most interested in the biblical literary paradox facing those that fear & worship an external deity possessed of conflicted emotions. For more see my post here:
http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/religion-diversity-tolerance-governance/topics/do-we-need-religion-have?commentid=3510593
"The most important thing is not whether you come to your morality or ethics by religious, intellecutal or ancient rituals, it is how one lives." ---- Have you also considered that the morality/ethics that you are finding difficult to articulate may already exist innately within you as empathy for those you share this world with & a sense of fairness & reciprocity arising out of your own humanity? Might religious, intellectual or ancient rituals simply be playing to them, or sometimes clouding them? What came first, your conscience or your religion? More interestingly, what would a sociopath who is conscience impaired, do w/religion? Manipulate it for their own selfish personal desires, fame, fortune, & power? It seems the sociopath unhampered by conscience has a decisive advantage in ruthlessly seeking & acquiring power to the detriment of society as a whole. Or what Keith might relate to as the ultimate "rugged individualism"? ;-)
http://tiny.cc/xc9hgw
"That is the most challanging part and on that I think we agree." --- Interesting! How difficult is it to follow one's own conscience? I agree, if one "believes" it is challenging, then it will be challenging. It is what you think it is. Beware the sociopaths that have no conscience, their only challenge is choosing from age old tried & true methods of fleecing sheep, where religion & politics are often favored for targeted audiences. Perhaps the greatest Intelligent Design flaw: first create inherently ignorant human minds, then place sociopaths in their midst to take advantage of & torment them? Sort of like allowing a mischievous talking snake/Satan into the Garden of Eden to corrupt the innocent? Or allowing Satan to torture & torment Job to settle a wager w/an all knowing omniscient deity(worst sucker bet ever? ;-))? Or having Oneself(who is also One's Son) tortured, tormented & crucified by One’s creation to placate Oneself in order to forgive One's own creation for defying One's singular commandment, thus disappointing One's Omniscient Self, similar to the defiance & disappointment that had already occurred w/Satan & a third of the angels? Could there be a consistent theme to the inconsistency? Don't question, just believe & obey? Obedience, reverence & subservience are so much easier marshaled & maintained when authority is thought t/b above question & beyond reproach. If we look back over history at such authority figures, they tend to exempt themselves from the same morality & ethics they seek to impose on their constituents, as God did w/Job. In essence they are hypocrites of the "Do as I say, not as I do!" mold. Ethics are about doing what is good because it is reasoned t/b intrinsically good, not simply because some presumed authority figure commands it, assuming we are speaking of adults.
http://tiny.cc/1q48fw
Cheers!
-
Still searching for that first "Recommend' eh, Jim? I guess it's lonely up there on the pinnacle of knowledge and "non-ignorance."
3 Recommendations
Shorter, less vitriolic posts might get you to the nirvana of someone agreeing with you.
...Here. I will give you one. See above...Courtesy of an ignorant Christian.
Cheers!
-
No problem Jim, I just read the first few lines and moved on. You points are far too advanced for my little ol' pea brain. I have never managed to hang in long enough to figure out what exactly who you are battling with and what your position is, but I just put you in the same category with Belal, i.e., you pop up from time to time and broadcast one of your posts which is no real problem.
Recommend
Now Lee, is different, he just pops out every now and then and pounds the whey out of anthropologists on the fossil side of evolution and then he's happy for a while.
Oh well, as they say in the modern mode, whatever floats your boat here is just fine.
.
-
-
Justice Antonin Scalia used the following logic in his dissent to the Supreme Court striking down most of the Arizona's SB1070. Arizona's anti-immigration law sought to toughen immigration law by allowing policemen to among other things, stop persons that they suspected were illegal immigrants and have them prove that they weren't. Though the court upheld pending possible further review the state's right to request citizenship status if the person was detained for other reasons, the rest of the law was ruled unconstitutional. Justice Scalia cited laws in pro slavery states that restricted so called free men from being in the state:
Recommend
"Notwithstanding “[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration” in the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration"
The idea that such laws were struck down by the 14th amendment seems to have escaped Justice Scalia. But the idea that he would use such bizarre if not immoral logic to justify support for law seems downright unhinged. As badly as conservatives want to put the whole slavery episode behind them, here is Justice Scalia bringing it up as if Southern states were well within their rights to act immorally in prohibiting freed slaves from occupying their territory. Supporters of SB1070 should tell Justice Scalia "thanks but no thanks".
-
To try and compare citizen blacks with non-citizen illegal entrants to this country is another one of your far-left crazy arguments...
Recommend
The State of Arizona simply replicated federal law over to its own statutes.
If the point of the majority ruling is that States do not have the right to enact statutes in areas of immigration, leaving that ability only to the federal government, then any with standing should sue all the sanctuary state and cities (there are dozens) that have put laws and other non-federal policies put in place by so-called "sanctuary" cities and states to reduce law enforcement with respect to illegal alien status.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and now the SCOTUS ruling has made sanctuary policies by any non-federal government entity null and void.
-
I would never discount Justice Scalia. He's actually making a brilliant point here, notwithstanding that the typical Liberal will see nothing but their racist agenda and scream he's making a pro-slavery argument, which he's not. He's making the argument that the 19th century Supreme Court granting Congress, and to some extent the Executive Branch, plenary powers over immigration was in error. And he argues that states having the right to exclude foreigners, but only for good reasons, is based in international law and was historically within their powers.
2 Recommendations
Scalia is a brilliant man citing law and philosophy. Obama and the Democrats are once again playing racial politics to get votes. If you want to credit the Enlightenment with some of the ideas our nation was founded on, Scalia's view on this is one of them. If you'd rather continued down the road of racial divide and racial politics, support Obama.
-
Nancy,
1 Recommendation
So does that mean that Scalia would find a place to use the Dred Scott decision decision which backed up southern states contention that slaves were property. Because a precedent was once law should not excuse its lack of morality or ethics.
The Dred Scott decison was a horrible exercise in jurisprudence. If anything it supports the idea that the states need to answer to a higher authority when they attempt to usurp the rights of people within its jurisdiction or wish to wrest away federal powers. Only in this case even the Supreme Court failed to provide moral guidance with regards to slavery. That the constitution itself was flawed is another thing that some folks like to forget s they wrap themselves up with it declaring almost religious like status for it.
I find nothing liberal or conservative about this. It is a matter of right and wrong. Slaves should have never been slaves in an "Enligtenment" scenario let alone being declared property or being denied a place to settle because their status violated the sensibilities of good southern folks. Scalia, despite his alleged brilliance, erred in citing a past states right to impose immoral rules on a segment of its population as proof that it should have the right to do so today.
-
Greg, sometimes I find your gross distortions sickening. Scalia wasn't, much less Nancy, defending discrimination or bringing racial politics into the equation; you did. You can only see evil in, or bring evil from left field for anything and everything you disagree with no matter how much reason is used. You are as blind as they come, seemingly blinded by some sort of inner rage against something or someone. Get a life Greg.
Recommend
-
-
Greg,
2 Recommendations
Try putting race aside for just a second and focus on the subject Scalia is writing about--immigration. Does a sovereign, which the State of Arizona is, have a right to exclude people from their territory who have no right to be there.
Scalia makes reference to Vattel: “The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does not flow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; and whoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreed to render it effectual.”
Scalia writes: "There is no doubt that 'before the adoption of the constitution of the United States' each State had the authority to 'prevent [itself] from being burdened by an influx of persons.' Mayor of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102, 132–133 (1837). And the Constitution did not strip the States of that authority. To the contrary, two of the Constitution’s provisions were designed to enable the States to prevent 'the intrusion of obnoxious aliens through other States.'"
Congress, over the years, enacted many laws concerning immigration. Scalia says, "I accept that as a valid exercise of federal power — not because of the Naturalization Clause (it has no necessary connection to citizenship) but because it is an inherent attribute of sovereignty no less for the United States than for the States."
It is an interest of the federal government as a sovereign, just as it is the right of a state as a sovereign. Scalia cites the Court, “'accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions.' Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 705 (1893) (quoting Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 659 (1892) )."
Scalia upholds federal law over the states, "In light of the predominance of federal immigration restrictions in modern times, it is easy to lose sight of the States’ traditional role in regulating immigration — and to overlook their sovereign prerogative to do so. I accept as a given that State regulation is excluded by the Constitution when (1) it has been prohibited by a valid federal law, or (2) it conflicts with federal regulation — when, for example, it admits those whom federal regulation would exclude, or excludes those whom federal regulation would admit."
Concerning Arizona's legislation Scalia says, "What this case comes down to, then, is whether the Arizona law conflicts with federal immigration law — whether it excludes those whom federal law would admit, or admits those whom federal law would exclude. It does not purport to do so. It applies only to aliens who neither possess a privilege to be present under federal law nor have been removed pursuant to the Federal Government’s inherent authority."
He says, "The State’s whole complaint — the reason this law was passed and this case has arisen — is that the citizens of Arizona believe federal priorities are too lax. The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes, absent any valid federal prohibition."
You argued that states need to answer to a higher authority. They do, and Arizona's laws are in agreement with federal law. Scalia made no mistake. You did in falling for the racial argument that Arizona is trying to do something racist and immoral. It is not. It's trying to protects its borders as a sovereign state, which has historically been the right of a sovereign. The immorality here is by Obama who is pitting one racial group against another by refusing to uphold federal laws and pandering to one group at the expense of another to get votes.
-
Kudos Nancy and thanks for the summary. You say that Scalia wrote that "To the contrary, two of the Constitution’s provisions were designed to enable the States to prevent 'the intrusion of obnoxious aliens through other States.'" Do you know what those two provisions are? Does Scalia elaborate? Greg likes to live in the dark but I like to learn.
Recommend
-
-
Xavier,
Recommend
It is very interesting. I wish I understood it all better. Here's the excerpt from Justice Scalia as he continues with his thoughts:
"There is no doubt that “before the adoption of the constitution of the United States” each State had the authority to “prevent [itself] from being burdened by an influx of persons.” Mayor of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102, 132–133 (1837). And the Constitution did not strip the States of that authority. To the contrary, two of the Constitution’s provisions were designed to enable the States to prevent “the intrusion of obnoxious aliens through other States.” Letter from James Madison to Edmund Randolph (Aug. 27, 1782), in 1 The Writings of James Madison 226 (1900); accord, The Federalist No. 42, pp. 269–271 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). The Articles of Confederation had provided that “the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.” Articles of Confederation, Art. IV. This meant that an unwelcome alien could obtain all the rights of a citizen of one State simply by first becoming an inhabitant of another. To remedy this, the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause provided that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Art. IV, §2, cl. 1 (emphasis added). But if one State had particularly lax citizenship standards, it might still serve as a gateway for the entry of “obnoxious aliens” into other States. This problem was solved “by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.” The Federalist No. 42, supra, at 271; see Art. I, §8, cl. 4. In other words, the naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it.
"Two other provisions of the Constitution are an acknowledgment of the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders. Article I provides that “[n]o State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws.” Art. I, §10, cl. 2 (emphasis added). This assumed what everyone assumed: that the States could exclude from their territory dangerous or unwholesome goods. A later portion of the same section provides that “[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Art. I, §10, cl. 3 (emphasis added). This limits the States’ sovereignty (in a way not relevant here) but leaves intact their inherent power to protect their territory."
Here's the entire dissent: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/303931/defining-characteristic-sovereignty-antonin-scalia?pg=1
-
-
Hi guys (and gals). Just dropped in to say hello and give you a link to my latest article. I'm sure most of you will love it! It's all about economics and i manage to link justin beiber, ozzie orbourne, and mitt romney. I'm such a genius! http://corporationsarepeople.blogspot.com/2012/06/great-gas-gambit.html
Recommend
I hope you all are having a great summer. i know i am. I hope I didn't interrupt anything important. Just take a quick comedy break and you can return to your seriousness. Cheers!
-
This morning as I dressed after my run, I engaged in a good natured back and forth with an acquaintence about the election campaign. He brought up ruling on SB1070 and declared the borders were wide open for illegal immigration. I countered with facts that there was little immigration , illegal or otherwise , occuring from the south. He then criticized the Presidents decision to not enforce the law requiring deportation of children brought to this country illegally by their parents.
1 Recommendation
Then something pretty interesting happened. A Hispanic gentlemen, apparently in his 30's , weighted in. From his demeanor I thought that he was going to defend the rule. But then he stated that he did not believe that children of illegals could be held responsible for what their parents had done. He talked about how Mexicans had freely crossed the border to do work that other Americans did not want to do. He talked about the illegal status was more of a cudgel used to exploit these workers through low wages.
He then said something quite profound. He was one of those kids brought to this country when he was nine. His father had begun coming to this country to work and returning. When border tightened , his family made a decision to live together in this country. He basically grew up here and mentioned that when he returns he is treated as an American not as an expatriate Mexican. His status is now secure as he has completed college and has a good job. Now this guy admits that he voted Republican in every election up to when he switched to Obama in 2008.
It interesting to talk political theory. But every now and then you run into someone that has lived the controversy. For me, the President's words that "It's the right thing to do" rang especially true.It's surprising that so many people would think that it was not.
-
Everyone can sympathize with the children of illegal immigrants who were raised in the US and have no knowledge of Mexico. That has nothing to do with Arizona securing its borders, however. Of course being illegal in any country is going to put you at a disadvantage and place you at the mercy of people who would exploit you. That's what happens when you don't live by the law! If you break the law for your advantage, then you also lose the law for your protection.
1 Recommendation
But who is the one ultimately at fault for this situation? It's not the United States. It's Mexico! They're the ones who fail to provide for their citizens and instead encourage them to cross the border and send the money home. As I've said before, Mexico is a rich nation, but the wealth is in the hands of the few at the top. The tax rate on the wealthy is about 15%. They could pay a lot more to fulfill the promise of the Mexican government's health care and welfare programs, but they don't. Instead they send their citizens to this country, often in deplorable and dangerous situations, to be supported by the taxpayers and resources here. Is that the right thing for Mexico to do?
I believe in helping the people of Mexico through legal programs and charity work. Every church I've been involved with has had outreaches to the people of Mexico. There is a real need. But it isn't right that the taxpaying citizens of this country, and the extra burden on the taxpayers of such states as Arizona, should be used as charity to non-citizens. If you believe in the cause, Greg McElvy, then get out your wallet and spend some time contributing to the needs of these people. But to sit there and insist the taxpayers of other states must carry the burden for your largess is hypocritical. It's easy to have a loving and giving view when you don't actually have to do anything and it costs you nothing.
-
Greg said: "It's surprising that so many people would think that it was not."
Recommend
Oh, and you know this how? But first, how many is "so many," and just what is it that they don't like? Are you projecting again your biases, hates and insecurities on others? Let's try to be a bit more precise and for a change not insult "so many" so nonchalantly. Enough is enough.
-
-
-
WSJ Editors Recommend
![[image]](http://web.archive.org/web/20120627231637im_/http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-TM849_0625sc_A_20120625094805.jpg)
Immigration Checks
The Supreme Court upheld this provision in Arizona law.
(Discuss | See related story)
Should police check the immigration status of people they stop?
Yes | No
-
Add a Comment
Your Profile Here…
Set up your profile to connect with members of Journal Community.
Your profile gives you access to personal messages, connections, and Group invitations.
Your Groups Here…
Participate in engaging dialogue on topics that matter to you and other members of your group.
When you join groups you'll find them for easy access here. Learn new perspectives and educate each other.....
Most Active Discussions
-
Question of the Day
Should police check the immigration status of people they stop?
-
Question of the Day
- back to top
-
Customer Center:
Create an Account:
Help & Information Center:
-
About:
-
WSJ.com:
-
Tools & Formats:
-
Digital Network- WSJ.com
- Marketwatch.com
- Barrons.com
- SmartMoney.com
- AllThingsD.com
- FINS: Finance, IT jobs, Sales jobs
- BigCharts.com
- Virtual Stock Exchange
- WSJ Radio
- Professor Journal
- WSJ U.S. Edition
- WSJ Asia Edition
- WSJ Europe Edition
- WSJ India Page
Foreign language editions:
- WSJ Chinese
- WSJ Japanese
- WSJ Portuguese
- WSJ Spanish
- WSJ Deutschland
ACAP Enabled
Copyright ©2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
- 533
- 534
- 535
- 536
- 537
»