Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PaulS

Migration

Recommended Posts

Just for something different, I wonder how people feel about migration and more to the point, control of migration.

Like The US (and I guess every country), Australia has rules in place around who we will and won't accept into the country and under what conditions.  The issue for Australia is the arrival of people from developing countries by boat.  There is also a large number who arrive by air and then overstay their visas. 

Thankfully I was born here, so much like the Queen of England and her royal birthright, for no other reason than my fortune in being born in the right place, I get to live in this lucky country.

Although we don't have the same National Emergency with illegal migration that the US apparently suffers, we nonetheless have our moments about how to control the influx of arrivals.

I completely understand the practical and logistical implications and why they might be required in order to maintain the high living standards we have.  It make sense from a "this is our country and we will decide who gets to live here" pov.  The other extreme, an uncontrolled inlfux of anybody and everybody, would seem problematic.

But I can't help but feel that is completely opposite to any notion of love and self-sacrifice for others.  "I'm alright Jack" is definitely a notion that pops into my head.  To be honest, selfishly I don't really want my quality of life or that of my kids to suffer due to uncontrolled immigration, but how do others reconcile such with not being prepared to share everything with others much less fortunate?  How Christian is it that we draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough for others?

Your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PaulS said:

Just for something different, I wonder how people feel about migration and more to the point, control of migration.

Like The US (and I guess every country), Australia has rules in place around who we will and won't accept into the country and under what conditions.  The issue for Australia is the arrival of people from developing countries by boat.  There is also a large number who arrive by air and then overstay their visas. 

Thankfully I was born here, so much like the Queen of England and her royal birthright, for no other reason than my fortune in being born in the right place, I get to live in this lucky country.

Although we don't have the same National Emergency with illegal migration that the US apparently suffers, we nonetheless have our moments about how to control the influx of arrivals.

I completely understand the practical and logistical implications and why they might be required in order to maintain the high living standards we have.  It make sense from a "this is our country and we will decide who gets to live here" pov.  The other extreme, an uncontrolled inlfux of anybody and everybody, would seem problematic.

But I can't help but feel that is completely opposite to any notion of love and self-sacrifice for others.  "I'm alright Jack" is definitely a notion that pops into my head.  To be honest, selfishly I don't really want my quality of life or that of my kids to suffer due to uncontrolled immigration, but how do others reconcile such with not being prepared to share everything with others much less fortunate?  How Christian is it that we draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough for others?

Your thoughts?

This is a loaded issue. I didn't really think much about immigration until Trump. It was always there, had to be controlled or regulated (and seemed to be) but it seems it is, now, always in our face. It seems reasonable that the US should help countries 'downstream' to improve conditions (without bankrolling a number of countries) and be humane (rather easily defined) in the 'care and detention' of those at our border. 

I'm not sure of some Dem's positions to decrimilize illegal immigration and make it a civil offense: seems we should have the option of civil or criminal prosecution. I have not followed closely the idea of health benefits or care for illegals. Certainly if a child or adult, in our care, is ill, we should provide care but if they actually mean 'health care for all illegals' that is both, seemingly, unfair to the many US citizens who can't afford it and not a smart issue against Trump. I think we should have 'secure' borders but I favor a mix of technologies and manpower and am against a wall - especially if it is a vanity project.

Think we should crackdown of those who overstay visas and try to attract the brightest but also very open to the 'salt of the earth' people who build the country and continue to come.

Even with our immigration problems, the quality of life has not declined and if we remain reasonable, this will continue. I am against the Trumpian mantra that it is (always) America first and carrying it out at the expense of the world. In addition, America has traveled the path of isolationism and it didn't work: to know history is hopefully being smart enough not to repeat its mistakes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is the governments job to bankroll those less fortunate as it forces all to pay and  some against their will to give. Personally i handle charity to the less fortunate as an individual through organizations and sometimes personally. Giving the power to government to take from all and to give where it see fit is to me dangerous and tempts corruption in high places.        Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a useful servant but  a fearful master.   (George Washington ???)

 

Paul said:

Quote

But I can't help but feel that is completely opposite to any notion of love and self-sacrifice for others.  "I'm alright Jack" is definitely a notion that pops into my head.  To be honest, selfishly I don't really want my quality of life or that of my kids to suffer due to uncontrolled immigration, but how do others reconcile such with not being prepared to share everything with others much less fortunate?  How Christian is it that we draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough for others?

To me, Love is neither letting all enter the country unchecked nor limiting those who can enter. Self sacrifice for others is an individual thing. It seems to me, there is nothing stopping one that is able to assist others by self-sacrifice from doing so except oneself. If one feels an unction to share everything with others much less fortunate there are many communes and other ways to accomplish such.

Christian is not a term to judge another's  choices but rather a walk or journey or process one strives toward. I have only had glimpses of understanding on why the poor are with us always but i can with some surety tell you that if everyone divided up their assets and shared all with everyone else at this time ... the poor and less fortunate will still be with us. In other words sharing all is not the answer for the poor or less fortunate .  It seems to me good to be thankful for what one has and do what is in your fortitude and ability to do to the best of your understanding and let the other do the same.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, JosephM said:

I don't think it is the governments job to bankroll those less fortunate as it forces all to pay and  some against their will to give. Personally i handle charity to the less fortunate as an individual through organizations and sometimes personally. Giving the power to government to take from all and to give where it see fit is to me dangerous and tempts corruption in high places.        Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a useful servant but  a fearful master.   (George Washington ???)

If we're talking about people coming to our borders, only the government is big enough (and it is their responsibility to protect the American people, that's why god made taxes) to deal with these men, women and children - in a humane manner, befitting and symbolizing American law and fairness/compassion. 

If we're talking about the less fortunate who are US citizens then I support a mixture of charity and government assistance - along with the opportunities and encouragement to work and thereby or in combination with assistance, obtain housing, food, education and health insurance. Our taxes sometime goes places that are probably against the will of many - but that is the reality. I am not a socialist and I believe people like Warren and Sanders could cost us a fortune but there is a vast difference between their proposals and assistance for our citizens when needed and appropriate.

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

How Christian is it that we draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough for others?

This begins to bring us to the separation of state and church. As an example, I might feel one way about abortion but I don't believe it is right to impose that belief on all US citizens by making abortion illegal or unduly restricting it. So too, it seems responsible as citizens of a county to have boundaries and monitor or restrict immigration (this goes to things like protection,  the imposition of taxes, the limits of resources and quality of life). I agree that beyond this one is free to practice and extend their religious charity in a way that suits them. 

I disagree to a degree on Christian and judgement. If one touts their Christianity, then we should be able to hold them to it and to the standard of what is truly Christian (sometimes difficult but sometimes rather obvious). 

I do not believe nor do I think it is fair or right (for any and all non-Christians) to call the US a Christian nation or impose Christian values on all. However, all religions aside, there still seems a responsibility to provide some governmental assistance to our citizens in times of need. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxes were not  meant for welfare in the US. Here is a short great writing on welfare and the use of taxes compiled from a speech in Congress by the famous American Davy Crockett.  It seems to me to be worth reading by every American to the very end.

http://www.101bananas.com/library2/crockett.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Taxes were not  meant for welfare in the US. Here is a short great writing on welfare and the use of taxes compiled from a speech in Congress by the famous American Davy Crockett.  It seems to me to be worth reading by every American to the very end.

Thanks, I will read it when time permits.

However, it depends what we are calling welfare and, in itself, limited welfare assistance can be both necessary and acceptable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, PaulS said:

… for no other reason than my fortune in being born in the right place, I get to live in this lucky country.

Fundamentally … How does being born somewhere (or ones forbearers being somewhere) give a 'right' to that plot of land. 

My forbearers came from the plane Earth. I claim my right to live on Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JosephM said:

Christian is not a term to judge another's  choices but rather a walk or journey or process one strives toward. I have only had glimpses of understanding on why the poor are with us always but i can with some surety tell you that if everyone divided up their assets and shared all with everyone else at this time ... the poor and less fortunate will still be with us. In other words sharing all is not the answer for the poor or less fortunate .  It seems to me good to be thankful for what one has and do what is in your fortitude and ability to do to the best of your understanding and let the other do the same.

I just find it hard to imagine, that the Jesus many of us think we understand these days, would be prepared to say 'No' to a family of immigrants trying to escape abject poverty and make it to a far better place to raise their children.  It just strikes me as selfish and an unwillingness to maybe suffer some reduction in our lifestyle - a lifestyle which largely we have simply because we were luckier than the other family to be born in a better country.

Don't get me wrong, I do it too so I am not pointing the finger at anyone, Christian or not.  Just questioning how it all fits in with the idea that Jesus was love, that we want to emulate Jesus, but then go and so "I'm not sharing with you".  It just seems so hypocritical of us, but what do you do.  Harden your heart and satisfy yourself that you're doing 'enough' anyway?  As Rom points out, who are we really to say another cannot share in the goodness of our countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, romansh said:

Fundamentally … How does being born somewhere (or ones forbearers being somewhere) give a 'right' to that plot of land. 

My forbearers came from the plane Earth. I claim my right to live on Earth.

Yes, but obviously nobody gets to live like that.  Laws and power and people prevent you form living where you want, when you want, how you want.  But I can't help but think those laws are in place to selfishly protect what one has and are designed to prevent sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, thormas said:

If we're talking about people coming to our borders, only the government is big enough (and it is their responsibility to protect the American people, that's why god made taxes) to deal with these men, women and children - in a humane manner, befitting and symbolizing American law and fairness/compassion. 

Yes, in our modern world that is the structures we have in place.  But I'm trying to get past the politics of it and try to understand how others 'feel' about saying 'No' to those in need when it is plainly clear we have so, so much more and largely because of pure luck (the luck of being born in the better country in the first place).

I just try to imagine that if I was a father struggling to raise and protect his wife and children in a violent, poverty-stricken country, and I wanted to make it to a better country just so my kids could grow up safer and with a little hope, that to be rejected by others who say that to love others is their highest priority, just seems so crap.  To me it seems we are sort of saying "I love you so much that I don't want to lose my 4 bedroom house with a pool, 2 x cars, and a very comfortable lifestyle because to share means my quality of life will diminish, albeit probably not as poorly as your life currently is now".

Again, I'm not pointing fingers because I am just as guilty as anybody else, and the way I probably deal with it is some little self-satisfying thoughts about contributing to charity and not being able to help everyone, but really, that just seems so hollow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PaulS said:

Yes, in our modern world that is the structures we have in place.  But I'm trying to get past the politics of it and try to understand how others 'feel' about saying 'No' to those in need when it is plainly clear we have so, so much more and largely because of pure luck (the luck of being born in the better country in the first place).

I just try to imagine that if I was a father struggling to raise and protect his wife and children in a violent, poverty-stricken country, and I wanted to make it to a better country just so my kids could grow up safer and with a little hope, that to be rejected by others who say that to love others is their highest priority, just seems so crap.  To me it seems we are sort of saying "I love you so much that I don't want to lose my 4 bedroom house with a pool, 2 x cars, and a very comfortable lifestyle because to share means my quality of life will diminish, albeit probably not as poorly as your life currently is now".

Again, I'm not pointing fingers because I am just as guilty as anybody else, and the way I probably deal with it is some little self-satisfying thoughts about contributing to charity and not being able to help everyone, but really, that just seems so hollow.

You make a good point. On one hand, we can say the world has changed drastically since the time of Jesus, on the other, has it changed that much in terms of fear of potential violence from the 'other' and the desire to protect one's own? Of course, being ruled by an outside force (Rome) took most or all of these decisions out of the hands of the people.

I do believe that we, in the USA, should let others seek asylum for various reasons, however, there is a responsibility and obligation to vet people in order to protect present citizens. It would seem also that this should fall equally across all civilized democracies (with an eye to the size of each country). In addition, we (the USA) should continue to allow and increase 'legal' immigration - and not just so called merit immigration. For these legals and for illegals who are not seeking asylum, it seems obvious and it is responsible that there should be a 'line.' 

The 'I don't want to lose my lifestyle' seems a poor excuse to block those who are in fear and in need. 

I found it telling in last night's debate that a good deal of consideration was given to correcting the systemic racism in the USA which has adversely  and historically affected one's ability to live in certain areas and therefore go to 'better' schools and have greater access to the greater society.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Again, I'm not pointing fingers because I am just as guilty as anybody else, and the way I probably deal with it is some little self-satisfying thoughts about contributing to charity and not being able to help everyone, but really, that just seems so hollow.

Paul,

Not all say No to those in need but we have no right to force others to say yes that are unwilling. We know not exactly why we were born into what people consider more favorable conditions than the other and while i have compassion and do what i can willingly to help  those who live in poverty,  feeling guilty for that which i have no control over is not an option with me. You are welcome to feel guilty if you wish but i see no benefit for you nor the other in doing so.

Also we do allow those who are seeking a better life into our country but as Thomas said they have to be vetted and it done in a legal and orderly fashion. Many are saying they are seeking asylum here and we cannot handle effectively handle the large droves of them and are finding they are using that loophole in our system as an excuse. They are coming from Honduras and Guatemala and we are now requiring them to seek asylum in the other countries they must pass through first since they use the asylum card to enter.

 Immigrants and their U.S.-born children now number approximately 89.4 million people, or 28 percent of the overall U.S. population, according to the 2018 Current Population Survey (CPS).  So , you see we are not turning our back on those seeking a better life. Our infrastructure can only handle so many at a time or everyone loses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...