Is that a moral argument or a practical one? Of course, it is practical.
I’m not at all reluctant. I have state multiple times that a vetting process is acceptable. I just don’t approve of the current status quo.
It sounded like you did so here:
The way you worded it, it doesn’t sound in any way like you’re willing to admit “some.” Please don’t get angry if you’re misunderstood; just politely clarify what you’re trying to say.
The poor cry out for very basic human needs, and the U.S. responds with a wall. This is immoral. So what is the Catholic response? Should taxpayers cover humanitarian aid? Should individuals donate? Do you personally care enough to do either?
You asked me what number of immigrants to admit, and I provided an answer.
This makes absolutely no sense. Economic needs are the NATION’S needs. That may or may not translate to my personal needs. I’m vegetarian, for example, so I’m not personally and directly affected by the labor shortage in the meat-packing industry.
We are agreed on this, therefore since there will be restrictions, some people who want to come here will be denied, and your objection that not serving those in need being antithetical to our faith applies to you as well. Or, more accurately, it doesn’t apply at all since we cannot in fact help everyone who needs it.
You just said you wouldn’t let everyone in so what makes it immoral for me to agree with that approach? Why is it immoral when I refuse them and moral when you do it?
You don’t get to make that comparison. Is it moral or immoral to build the wall? You cannot claim it is per se immoral because clearly it isn’t. All you can do is question the motivation of those who support it. As I said, this amounts to a judgment of persons, not of policies.
No, you did not answer with a number.
The needs of migrants are by definition not part of the NATION’s needs. But your NATIONS needs drives the proposal you put forward. Are you now saying you would allow more immigrants than your NATION needs? If so, how many more? Please give us your number.
Sadly, your policy of not answering question on how many immigrants is enough is not a new position for you.
I am not taking a position on whether it is moral to build a wall. I am saying that the decision, whichever way you decide it, is a decision that involves moral questions, otherwise why would Jesus have bothered with his parable?LeafByNiggle:
You don’t get to make that comparison. Is it moral or immoral to build the wall?
There is no moral decision to be made beyond “Do I want to find the best solution or not?” Jesus gave us an objective: help the poor, but he told us nothing whatever about how to go about doing it. If I decide that building a wall is a good idea then it is moral for me to support it, and whether it turns out well or badly doesn’t determine whether that support was moral or immoral. It’s not a moral decision. My decision is based on my expectation of what will happen, that is, on my prudential judgment, which is not a moral quality.
I’ll repeat myself one last time: I’m not in the construction, agricultural, or food processing industries. You would have to get numbers from them. Only they know how many laborers they are short as a result of immigration restrictions. I don’t know how many ways I can explain this until it registers.
I answered. It’s up to you to read and comrehend it.
BOTH sets of needs are met when labor shortages are filled.
Out of everybody at the border petitioning for permission to live and work here, how many are being let in?
Maybe that’s true, maybe not. It depends on whom you’d like to see admitted.
So how do you do it?
I wonder if you are not playing with the definition of “the problem.” If the problem is the plight of refugees fleeing drug gang violence, are you seriously suggesting that building a wall to keep them out of the US is a better solution for them than offering them a place to live in the US? However if you think the problem is keeping the US safe from potentially dangerous criminals, then the wall could be a solution to that problem, but it is a different problem from the one I mentioned. So let’s not get sloppy and use a non-specific term like “the problem” as if we all are trying to solve the same problem.LeafByNiggle:
There is no moral decision to be made beyond “Do I want to find the best solution or not?” Jesus gave us an objective: help the poor, but he told us nothing whatever about how to go about doing it. If I decide that building a wall is a good idea then it is moral for me to support it, and whether it turns out well or badly doesn’t determine whether that support was moral or immoral. It’s not a moral decision. My decision is based on my expectation of what will happen, that is, on my prudential judgment, which is not a moral quality.
There are asylees and immigrants seeking refuge and work. There are job positions to be filled. Factually speaking, that is the case.
It is 100% relevant. Let’s rewind a little. You asked me how many immigrants and asylees should be admitted. I responded that there should be at least enough to fill specific labor shortages.
Unless I have special, insider knowledge of the inner operations of Tyson Farms, Del Monte, etc., I cannot provide the specific number that you are demanding. Public policy would have to be based on testimony based on the figures that they alone can provide. It is obviously, clearly, indisputably not a high enough number if they cannot fill positions normally filled by immigrants.
By all means, then…bring them here. Undoubtedly all the violent criminals will just magically want to stay in their home countries. They won’t bring their violent culture here or anything…
It appears your “rewinder” is broken. Or did you mean “rewriter”? Because that’s is not what you posted.
Apparently your rewinder screwed this up too. Please stop pleading for victim status. I did not post that you were “un-Christian.”
You cannot reasonably make such a statement having just acknowledged you too would accept restrictions on who can enter. This statement is untrue in that it simply ignores reality, but even if it was true it applies equally to you.
I would do it by bearing in mind the needs of US citizens, and how an influx of poor, unskilled workers affects the poor and unskilled in our own country competing for many of the same jobs. It is not the needs of only the aliens that have to be considered.
There are surely any number of problems, but what is almost completely ignored in these discussions is the impact hoards of immigrants have on our society and our own citizens, and any recognition of the fact that frequently the needs of the former compete directly with the needs of the latter. I also reject the characterization of most illegals as “refugees fleeing drug gang violence.” I think that description applies to a very small minority of those trying to enter.
Now who’s playing with definitions? I could claim that the problem of getting my car to start is a moral issue, at least to the extent that my decisions are “informed by morality”, after all, if it’s a bad battery I could choose to steal my neighbor’s. But in fact there is no more a moral challenge in fixing my car than in fixing immigration. I have to figure out what the problem is and then I have to come up with the best solution in the circumstances.
If you think serious problems of this sort are being ignored, go ahead and make the case for that. It seems to me the problem of that impact is being given just the right amount of attention.
I did not say that “most of them” are fleeing drug gang violence. But I also reject the characterization that most of them are trying to enter to upgrade their life from “tolerable” to “better” and that they could very easily stay where they are.
By saying “figure out what the problem is” you are disguising the moral question as a practical question. If your car won’t start, then figuring out what the problem is amounts to diagnosing a dead battery. But if there are people at the border asking for asylum, and there are people in the US afraid of what that might mean for them, it is no longer a case of “figuring out what the problem is.” There are two very different problems, and some people want to solve one of them more than the other. The choice of which problem to solve involves morality.
I was able to come up with one. The choice between buying a premium driver and paying for food for a soup kitchen.
I would consider it immoral to turn away innocent, hard-working people intending to make an honest living. I would consider it moral to turn away a human trafficker or drug kingpin, who are quite often, if not almost entirely, entering the country in different places and methods than the border fence. That’s what restrictions are. And I can reasonably make such statements.
Please be more specific. You conceded:
So how do you, personally, fulfill this objective? Or do you think Christ was just paying lip service to the idea?
A good idea within the religious framework of ethics that helps, compells us to act virtuously.