Illegal Immigration and Morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter MOTHBALL83
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If those needy are immigrants, legal or not, that is where my charity must be directed. FYI, I also totally oppose any bilingual education not directed at bringing the students into the American culture. Those that come here have the moral responsibility on their part to contribute to this society and embrace this culture.
My parish is very heavily new immigrant. We do everything bilingual and have a priest that has no tolerance for parishioners who complain about the Spanish. However, in VBS, where many of the kids were Spanish-speaking, he made it clear that the prayers were going to be taught in English, as they needed to learn them in the language of their adopted country. I think this illustrates my opinion of the balance of what a country should do for their immigrants and immigrants should do for their host.

I agree with everything here except for the last part. It is not in the best interest of the nation to keep allowing in a massive amount of people, especially poor, uneducated ones. A good decade or two more of that and we’ll be in the position of the nations they came from, then where would they go? (Or us for that matter?)

I commend everything you and your parish is doing for the needy, as I said, I believe that is our responsibilty. But its not the government’s. The government’s job is to do what is in the best interest of its citizens.

-Chris
 
Here are some facts to consider:

Top 10 Immigration Myths
As the U.S. immigration debate rhetoric becomes more shrill, separating fact from fiction can be a challenge

By: Alex Valdes
  1. ‘Mexican’ equals ‘Illegal’
There are more than 18 million immigrants from Mexico in the U.S., but only 6 million of those – 33 percent – are undocumented.

Illegal immigrants come from all over the globe, with virtually all the attention focused on Mexico. However, nearly one half of all undocumented people in the U.S. are from regions besides Mexico. The Pew Hispanic Center says that 22 percent are from other Latin American countries, 13 percent from Asia, 6 percent from Europe and Canada combined, and 3 percent from Africa and elsewhere.
  1. They are draining the economy
Illegal immigrants do pay the same taxes as everyone else: sales tax, income tax, Social Security tax and even property tax, which is figured into rent payments.

As for Social Security tax, many illegal immigrants use fake numbers to get jobs, and even though money is taken out of their paychecks, they will never get that money back. The so-called “earnings suspense file,” i.e. taxes that cannot be matched to workers’ names and SSNs, is growing by an average of more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes, according to the Social Security Administration.
  1. They don’t want to learn English
“Latinos want to learn English, because they need it for their jobs,” she says. “If they don’t learn, it’s not because they don’t want to, it’s because they don’t have time because of work and taking care of their kids.”

George Mason University’s Mercatus Center cites 2000 Census data that says only 2.5 percent of American residents are Spanish-only speakers, and the majority of residents of Spanish-speaking households speak English “very well.”
  1. Immigrants ruin American culture
“We come here and live the way we want,” she says. “We don’t tell them how to live. How can we be ruining their lifestyle? If we start to try to be like them, then we would take over their heritage. We’re here, but we don’t want to take away their way of life.”
  1. They take jobs from Americans
University of California at Berkeley economist David Card, in his study “Is the New Immigration Really So Bad?” (January 2005), concluded that there is scant “evidence that immigrants have harmed the opportunities of less educated natives” and that “the wage gap between dropouts and high school graduates has remained nearly constant since 1980, despite supply pressure from immigration.”

Immigrants from Mexico fill many jobs Americans won’t do. Luna’s husband, Don Fernando, worked the fields in California starting when he was 14, and Luna herself has done her share of grueling work, including housekeeping, fast food and dishwashing.
  1. A tough border keeps out illegals
But ending illegal immigration from Mexico is probably impossible, says Jose Juarez, a union organizer for the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters in Kent.

“As long as the United States has a need for workers, they will come,” he said. “The government is wasting money with the wall and the National Guard (at the border). They can say they’ll stop them from coming, but I don’t think they can as long as there is work.
  1. Immigrants increase risk of terrorism
“People try to make a connection with 9/11, and they see a terrific risk of terrorists pouring over the border,” Neiwert says. “But none of the 9/11 terrorists came from Mexico. The only terrorist to cross over a land border was Ahmed Ressam, and he was coming from Canada.

“The Canadian border is much longer than the Mexican border [3,987 miles versus 1,933 miles], and is significantly less secure. There are much longer stretches of wild places, wilderness where you can slip into the U.S. But the reality is that terrorists who come here are going to get fake documents and fly into JFK.”

Dennis Griswold, associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, says “the 19 terrorists who attacked the United States on Sept. 11 did not apply to the INS to immigrate or to become U.S. citizens. Like most aliens who enter the United States, they were here on temporary tourist and student visas. We could reduce the number of immigrants to zero and still not stop terrorists from slipping into the country on non-immigrant visas.”
  1. The U.S. is a land of opportunity
The “Horatio Alger myth” – named for the 19th-Century author whose books depict rags-to-riches stories in which poor young boys achieve the “American dream” through hard work and guts – is deeply ingrained in our society.

It’s a fable also applied to immigrants, but doesn’t take into account barriers they face: working multiple low-paying jobs to survive, lack of English, being away from their culture, and racism and ethnocentrism.

I reached the word limit here.
 
) They don’t want to learn English
“Latinos want to learn English, because they need it for their jobs,” she says. “If they don’t learn, it’s not because they don’t want to, it’s because they don’t have time because of work and taking care of their kids.”
George Mason University’s Mercatus Center cites 2000 Census data that says only 2.5 percent of American residents are Spanish-only speakers, and the majority of residents of Spanish-speaking households speak English “very well.”
  1. Immigrants ruin American culture
“We come here and live the way we want,” she says. “We don’t tell them how to live. How can we be ruining their lifestyle? If we start to try to be like them, then we would take over their heritage. We’re here, but we don’t want to take away their way of life.”

WOW!! Whoever wrote that doesn’t live in Southern California!! Here they insist on speaking Spanish, belonging to their own groups, and demand to be called, “Mexicans,” not Americans. I am speaking from 33 years of experience and interaction with them! Just come visit any school in the Hispanic part of LA (which is almost all of LA) or drive to the OC town of La Habra, and you’ll see how correct that document is!

Now I do know some patriotic Americans of Mexican descent, but sadly, they are few and far between.

-Chris
 
And I never said that ***only ***Mexicans were illegal immigrants. But even Hispanic activist groups themselves admit they make up the larger part of the illegal population, at least here in the Southwest, and they attract the most attention to themselves (how many French flags did you see in the May Day demonstrations?)

-Chris
 
THE CHURCH AND ILLEGAL IMMMIGRATION
Pope John Paul II
Annual Message for World Migration Day 1996 given July 25, 1995
  1. Today the phenomenon of illegal migrants has assumed considerable proportions…because the supply of foreign labor is becoming excessive in comparison to the needs of the economy, which already has difficulty in absorbing its domestic workers… [but a migrant’s] irregular legal status cannot allow the migrant to lose his dignity, since he is endowed with inalienable rights, which can neither be violated nor ignored.
Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants…

Agustin821, insofar as the question in this thread is concerned, the above quote is the crux of what The Holy Father said in the link you provided above in post #102. Absolutely nobody on this board disagrees with the Holy Father, but I could be wrong because some may not want to prevent illegal immigration. In any case you said much clarification is needed about this issue because of all the comments. In light of the Holy Father’s comments, can you please explain what you meant?
 
  1. They take jobs from Americans
University of California at Berkeley economist David Card, in his study “Is the New Immigration Really So Bad?” (January 2005), concluded that there is scant “evidence that immigrants have harmed the opportunities of less educated natives” and that “the wage gap between dropouts and high school graduates has remained nearly constant since 1980, despite supply pressure from immigration.”
Immigrants from Mexico fill many jobs Americans won’t do. Luna’s husband, Don Fernando, worked the fields in California starting when he was 14, and Luna herself has done her share of grueling work, including housekeeping, fast food and dishwashing.
This is certainly not true and the insult itself almost shuts down the debate here. Americans have always been hard workers. I know business owners that mop their own floors and scrub thier own toilets. I know college graduates getting jobs at McDonald’s right now because of the economy. Not only have I done exactly those jobs (dish washing, janitorial, bus boy, yard work, etc…) , but I know a lot of 'Americans" (which aren’t only white) do them. As for working the fields: that joke of a union, the UFW, played a cruel joke on unemployed Americans by faking a “Take Our Jobs Campaign.” They were offering to train Americans to work in the fields to replace them so that we could have jobs (not realizing that we are not against legal migrant farm workers). I signed up, as well as a good number of others because I had no job, no place to live, and had lots of bills come due, and you know what?,…well, as I said , it was merely a joke. I can share my e-mails with the UFW about it with you if you’d like. The UFW lost its credibilty and legitimacy as far as I am concerned. And I’ve never seen a “Help Wanted” classified for a farm job. I have no idea how migrant workers hear of them!

Lets say this is true and some Americans don’t want to work certain jobs, even though their houses are being taken away and many now live on the streets, ok, don’t you think its time we as a society and our government especially gets up and yell, “Hey, work the darn fileds if you have to!!Clean a toilet if you have to!! Get off your duffs and work to take care of your families! Beggars can’t be choosers!!” ?

-Chris

By the way, that came form the **University of California at BERKELEY. **'Nough said.
 
Here are some facts to consider:

Top 10 Immigration Myths
As the U.S. immigration debate rhetoric becomes more shrill, separating fact from fiction can be a challenge

By: Alex Valdes
  1. ‘Mexican’ equals ‘Illegal’
There are more than 18 million immigrants from Mexico in the U.S., but only 6 million of those – 33 percent – are undocumented.

Illegal immigrants come from all over the globe, with virtually all the attention focused on Mexico. However, nearly one half of all undocumented people in the U.S. are from regions besides Mexico. The Pew Hispanic Center says that 22 percent are from other Latin American countries, 13 percent from Asia, 6 percent from Europe and Canada combined, and 3 percent from Africa and elsewhere.
  1. They are draining the economy
Illegal immigrants do pay the same taxes as everyone else: sales tax, income tax, Social Security tax and even property tax, which is figured into rent payments.

As for Social Security tax, many illegal immigrants use fake numbers to get jobs, and even though money is taken out of their paychecks, they will never get that money back. The so-called “earnings suspense file,” i.e. taxes that cannot be matched to workers’ names and SSNs, is growing by an average of more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes, according to the Social Security Administration.
  1. They don’t want to learn English
“Latinos want to learn English, because they need it for their jobs,” she says. “If they don’t learn, it’s not because they don’t want to, it’s because they don’t have time because of work and taking care of their kids.”

George Mason University’s Mercatus Center cites 2000 Census data that says only 2.5 percent of American residents are Spanish-only speakers, and the majority of residents of Spanish-speaking households speak English “very well.”
  1. Immigrants ruin American culture
“We come here and live the way we want,” she says. “We don’t tell them how to live. How can we be ruining their lifestyle? If we start to try to be like them, then we would take over their heritage. We’re here, but we don’t want to take away their way of life.”
  1. They take jobs from Americans
University of California at Berkeley economist David Card, in his study “Is the New Immigration Really So Bad?” (January 2005), concluded that there is scant “evidence that immigrants have harmed the opportunities of less educated natives” and that “the wage gap between dropouts and high school graduates has remained nearly constant since 1980, despite supply pressure from immigration.”

Immigrants from Mexico fill many jobs Americans won’t do. Luna’s husband, Don Fernando, worked the fields in California starting when he was 14, and Luna herself has done her share of grueling work, including housekeeping, fast food and dishwashing.
  1. A tough border keeps out illegals
But ending illegal immigration from Mexico is probably impossible, says Jose Juarez, a union organizer for the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters in Kent.

“As long as the United States has a need for workers, they will come,” he said. “The government is wasting money with the wall and the National Guard (at the border). They can say they’ll stop them from coming, but I don’t think they can as long as there is work.
  1. Immigrants increase risk of terrorism
“People try to make a connection with 9/11, and they see a terrific risk of terrorists pouring over the border,” Neiwert says. “But none of the 9/11 terrorists came from Mexico. The only terrorist to cross over a land border was Ahmed Ressam, and he was coming from Canada.

“The Canadian border is much longer than the Mexican border [3,987 miles versus 1,933 miles], and is significantly less secure. There are much longer stretches of wild places, wilderness where you can slip into the U.S. But the reality is that terrorists who come here are going to get fake documents and fly into JFK.”

Dennis Griswold, associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, says “the 19 terrorists who attacked the United States on Sept. 11 did not apply to the INS to immigrate or to become U.S. citizens. Like most aliens who enter the United States, they were here on temporary tourist and student visas. We could reduce the number of immigrants to zero and still not stop terrorists from slipping into the country on non-immigrant visas.”
  1. The U.S. is a land of opportunity
The “Horatio Alger myth” – named for the 19th-Century author whose books depict rags-to-riches stories in which poor young boys achieve the “American dream” through hard work and guts – is deeply ingrained in our society.

It’s a fable also applied to immigrants, but doesn’t take into account barriers they face: working multiple low-paying jobs to survive, lack of English, being away from their culture, and racism and ethnocentrism.

I reached the word limit here.
John Paul II said that Illegal Immigration should be prevented. Doesn’t matter where they come from.
 
  1. A tough border keeps out illegals
But ending illegal immigration from Mexico is probably impossible, says Jose Juarez, a union organizer for the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters in Kent.
“As long as the United States has a need for workers, they will come,” he said. “The government is wasting money with the wall and the National Guard (at the border). They can say they’ll stop them from coming, but I don’t think they can as long as there is work.
When have we ever even tried to have a “tough” border? Jose Juarez, hardly an objective source (a union organizer), did use the word “probably.” You know why? Because a secure border has never been tried!! And we’re “wasting our time” with the National Guard at the border because they are forbidden from interaction with illegals…they only do “logistical” and “intelligence” work, so that the few Border Agents we have can be out in the field more!. From The Washington Times at url] washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/10/obama-keep-national-guard-border/ : "Mr. Obama last year announced he was sending up to 1,200 troops to the border to help with logistical support and intelligence operations. The troops are not supposed to be actively enforcing immigration laws."

-Chris
 
THE CHURCH AND ILLEGAL IMMMIGRATION

Pope John Paul II
Annual Message for World Migration Day 1996 given July 25, 1995
“…Illegal immigration should be prevented…”
And just what is Mexico doing to “prevent illegal immigration” other than just chastising Americans for defending thier families, homes, and nation?: articles.cnn.com/2011-06-23/world/mexico.calderon.clinton_1_border-patrol-border-fence-fatal-shooting?_s=PM:WORLD

-All the other nations illegals come from don’t seem to be as vocal about our immigration laws, that is why I single it out.
 
This is not the position of the Founding Fathers of the USA.*
Shouldn’t you care more about what the Church teaches? I’m not convinced that the valiant efforts of American Catholics to bring their religion into line with American ideology can ever be entirely successful. The ideology of the Founding Fathers was fundamentally un-Catholic in a number of ways.
A wise man once said, “what a government gives, it can take away.” We, having the freedom to do so, are to work and provide for ourselves. When we need help, we should look to private sources for it, like a church or charity group, not the government. The first century christians didn’t look to the government for help, for obvious reasons. We should try to follow their example. A nation’s government’s job is not to do what is in the best interest of all humanity, just what is in the best interest of that nation.
I don’t get this. The government, according to you, isn’t supposed to do what is good for its own people (because we are supposed to that for themselves), nor to care about the welfare of humanity as a whole. It’s just supposed to do what is in the interests of this abstract thing called a “nation.” What is this “nation” and why should anyone care about its interests? What rational or virtuous purpose does government or the nation serve, in your view? Why do you believe in the nation at all?

I could partially answer this for you. I suspect that you hold some view to the effect that nations help preserve the freedom of the people who live in them, and so are supposed to act in ways that preserve that freedom but not to provide directly for the good of the citizens in other ways. But this is not a view rooted in Catholic thought, as far as I can see. And given the huge disagreements about what “freedom” means, I don’t think it’s a coherent alternative to the more Catholic concept of the common good. Nor is it at all clear to me that nation-states best preserve freedom–the nation-state is in fact an instrument ideally shaped for the imposition of governmental tyranny, and developed largely for that purpose and as part of the development of the ideology of absolute monarchy. I am therefore baffled by why many contemporary Americans are at once passionate nationalists and self-proclaimed opponents of “government.” I understand emotionally why people would take this view, but that doesn’t make it any more rational.
And whether you like it or not, individual nations exist.
Indeed, and I think this best explains much of the language in recent Catholic teaching that you take as approval of nation-states. A nation-state is not intrinsically evil–it’s not contrary to natural law simply by existing. So Catholics can certainly work with nation-states, in spite of their dark history. (After all, Catholicism as an institution has a dark history as well–all human institutions do, though the nation-state has a particularly dark and bloody one.)
 
Per cmforte:

Pope John Paul II’s Annual Message for World Migration Day 1996 given July 25, 1995:

“…Illegal immigration should be prevented…”

And just what is Mexico doing to “prevent illegal immigration”​

Here is what Mexico is doing to prevent illegal immigration INTO ITS OWN COUNTRY:

The head administrator of the Mexican Superintendency of Tax Administration, Raul Diaz, has confirmed that his government is building a wall in the state of Chiapas, along the Mexican/Guatemalan border. Oh, and this, too:
canadafreepress.com/2007/lillpop022707.htm
 
Anyone encounter any comments by the Church that criticize countries for not getting their political-economic act together so that a man doesn’t have to risk his life crossing a burning desert and escaping his country just to earn enough to eat?
 
Anyone encounter any comments by the Church that criticize countries for not getting their political-economic act together so that a man doesn’t have to risk his life crossing a burning desert and escaping his country just to earn enough to eat?
TIME MAGAZINE USA
MEXICO: Socialism: Mortal Sin
Monday, Jan. 27, 1936

Of importance in Mexican politics was a grave pronouncement at Mexico City last week in which the Catholic Church reviewed and re-emphasized its abhorrence of what the Church defines as Socialism.

“Venerable Brothers and Beloved Sons,” began last week’s Pastoral Letter, signed by Archbishop Pascual Diaz and all Catholic archbishops and bishops in Mexico. Its point: “No Catholic can be a Socialist, understanding by socialism the philosophical, economic or social system which, in one form or another, does not recognize the rights of God and the Church, nor the natural right of every man to possess the goods he has acquired by his work or has inherited legitimately, or which foments hatred and the unjust struggle of classes.”

The Pastoral Letter challenges flatly the Act of 1934 making compulsory throughout Mexico education of a Socialist type, including explanation by grade school teachers of the care and use of sexual organs. Against this, in the case of young children, the abhorrence of the Church is maximum. Further, last week’s Pastoral Letter explicitly declared that for a Catholic to be a Socialist, or study or teach Socialism, or cooperate to Socialist ends, or even for appearance’s sake to feign to approve Socialism, is to commit a “mortal sin.”

With President Lazaro Cardenas and the Socialist Mexican Cabinet evidently in mind, the Archbishops & Bishops closed with a prayer beseeching Jesus Christ “to illuminate those who have the grave responsibility of watching over the welfare of the nation, so that, leaving the path of error which leads only to degradation and misery, they may give the true guarantees and liberties which we need to achieve the peace, tranquillity, culture and prosperity of our beloved country.”​

Do you think the Mexican government listened?
 
TIME MAGAZINE USA
MEXICO: Socialism: Mortal Sin
Monday, Jan. 27, 1936

Of importance in Mexican politics was a grave pronouncement at Mexico City last week in which the Catholic Church reviewed and re-emphasized its abhorrence of what the Church defines as Socialism.

Do you think the Mexican government listened?
Well, I have mixed emotions. First, it was in 1936, and it didn’t address illegal immigration, ostensibly because it wasn’t a problem then. While I agree with the message, it has given me pause to consider that many in Mexico consider the government and the Church to be in collusion. I even heard one Mexican say, “The Church is our cross.” And therefore, it might have fallen on deaf ears among the hoi polloi who have to be on board with the solution. At least it didn’t blame America first.
 
THE CHURCH AND ILLEGAL IMMMIGRATION
Agustin821, insofar as the question in this thread is concerned, the above quote is the crux of what The Holy Father said in the link you provided above in post #102. Absolutely nobody on this board disagrees with the Holy Father, but I could be wrong because some may not want to prevent illegal immigration. In any case you said much clarification is needed about this issue because of all the comments. In light of the Holy Father’s comments, can you please explain what you meant?
I think if there’s one thing everyone agrees with here, it’s that illegal immigration must be prevented; where everyone disagrees is in the means used for doing so. It seems the bishops are supporting the idea of an immigration reform that would simplify the immigration process, especially for those coming from Mexico. Both JPII and Benedict XVI have said that the long term solution lies in the US helping Mexico to resolve the problems it has that make its residents want/need to emigrate in the first place. JPII says “The most appropriate choice, which will yield consistent and long-lasting results is that of international cooperation which aims to foster political stability and to eliminate underdevelopment;” this should be seen “as a challenge to the human race’s sense of responsibility” (The Church and Illegal Immigration, 2). Benedict XVI said that “the fundamental solution is that there should no longer be any need to emigrate because there are sufficient jobs in the homeland, a self-sufficient social fabric…Therefore, we must all work to achieve this goal and for a social development that makes it possible to offer citizens work and a future in their homeland” (cited in A Pastoral Letter on the Human Rights of Immigrants).

We should look at the problem of illegal immigration from this perspective, both as a country and as individuals. As a nation, do everything to help the other country in need, in this case, Mexico, so that there will no longer be a need for their citizens to emigrate. As individuals, our perspective on illegal immigration may affect our interactions or our interior charity towards hispanics in general and Mexicans in particular. Our point of view should be one that takes into account the dignity of the human person, regardless of immigration status; that is to say, we should look to the person with love. Look to them, thinking “how can I help edify them and lead them to eternal salvation” and “how can I help them in their social or psychological needs.”

This is a very different point of view from the one that many seem to hold, which more or less amounts to seeing immigrants from the perspective of “how are you beneficial to me” or “how are you detrimental to my success.” It is true that illegal immigration can cause many problems to a society, but these problems must be faced from a Christian point of view, and not from a purely nationalistic one.

This is what I meant when I said some clarifications needed to be made on the issue before any real advances are made. First, to really know what Christianity is and everything it entails (part of which is found in JPII’s speech); second, to know the facts surrounding this delicate problem (part of which are found in the appendices of the pastoral letter). If progress is to be made in this discussion, we must first understand Catholicism and our duty toward our neighbor, then we must understand how to apply these principles in this particular case. Without this foundation, we risk going astray and basing our opinions on worldly thinking.

Peace,

Agustin

ps. A more complete JP II quote is “The necessary prudence required to deal with so delicate a matter cannot become one of reticence or exclusivity, because thousands would suffer the consequences as victims of situations that seem destined to deteriorate instead of being resolved. His irregular legal status cannot allow the migrant to lose his dignity, since he is endowed with inalienable rights, which can neither be violated nor ignored.
Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants.”
 
Anyone encounter any comments by the Church that criticize countries for not getting their political-economic act together so that a man doesn’t have to risk his life crossing a burning desert and escaping his country just to earn enough to eat?
Notice the deafening silence, sedonaman. Because this is where the condemnation belongs, and such public condemnation has never occurred. (At least to my knowledge.)

Speaking of --ahem-- Justice for the Poor, where or where is the outcry about a man and his family, sometimes voluntarily separating due to calculating the risk involved, having no other choice for a livelihood than having to leave his native land and cross into a sovereign territory on foot, where, instead of identifying honestly, he will have to forever live in the shadows and be deprived of the privileges of citizenship? What kind of a “choice” is that? This is such a poor excuse for “Justice” that I have difficulty typing the word.
 
Continued:
Indeed, and I think this best explains much of the language in recent Catholic teaching that you take as approval of nation-states. A nation-state is not intrinsically evil–it’s not contrary to natural law simply by existing. So Catholics can certainly work with nation-states, in spite of their dark history. (After all, Catholicism as an institution has a dark history as well–all human institutions do, though the nation-state has a particularly dark and bloody one.)
What "dark history’? Not in America. We’ve made mistakes, yes, but over-all it was this nation-state and its belief in democracy, in the rule of the people and not of monarchs, tyrants, or even Popes that has advanced the good of the world. Here is what I wrote on the subject: (from: facebook.com/chris.mforte#!/note.php?note_id=217825461590760), "Americans, spared from the history of Europe, spared from all the negative effects of chauvinist and bellicose nationalism, still believe in their own nation and its institutions and ideals, sometimes called the American Creed (cmods.org/Units/Unit1/Cmod3TheAmericanCreed.pdf ), and therefore do not put much legitimacy into the international community and international laws. This is why we still, to a degree, act unilaterally, ignore world opinion, and put our interests in front of those of others.

“Europeans, in contrast, with a negative and disastrous history because of nationalism, while recognizing the limited role of nations and governments to govern a limited area in certain limited contexts, believe that the nation-state and nationalism are always negative concepts and are concepts of the past, and therefore place more trust and legitimacy into international bodies, like the UN, the WTO, the World Court- and into international law.”

And I would love to see the evidence supporting the assertion that nation-states have a more “dark and bloody” history then a time when there were absolute monarchs and popes.
Nor is it at all clear to me that nation-states best preserve freedom–the nation-state is in fact an instrument ideally shaped for the imposition of governmental tyranny, and developed largely for that purpose and as part of the development of the ideology of absolute monarchy. I am therefore baffled by why many contemporary Americans are at once passionate nationalists and self-proclaimed opponents of “government.” I understand emotionally why people would take this view, but that doesn’t make it any more rational.
Not clear to you? Don’t you know the history before the development of modern democracy and the nation-state? And actually, as explained above, the nation-state does the exact opposite: by keeping power de-centralized it prevents tyranny, just as Reagan said. And your assertion that the nation-state is " an instrument ideally shaped for the imposition of governmental tyranny, and developed largely for that purpose and as part of the development of the ideology of absolute monarchy," is just a matter of opinion. A nation-state, if it is democratic, ruled by the people, like the US, is actually a bulwark aganst tyranny and an absolute monarchy.

-Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top