I know this may be a hard concept but some ideas are not eternal. what applies then or works in a world where religious ideology is absolute doesn’t apply in the 21st century.
Maybe hundreds of years ago but the human race has changed a lot.
Less war, less illness, free movement of information and the possible birth of the space age and immortality?
This is a little like arguing that even though the roof leaks we shouldn’t fix it because it doesn’t address the plumbing problem. Whatever else needs to be done, the border needs to be secured.
We will always have people entering the US illegally, but arguing that we shouldn’t try to stem the flow is like arguing we shouldn’t have laws against murder since we will always have murderers. A physical barrier will significantly reduce the incidence of illegal crossings. That’s good enough reason to build one.
What a concept: eliminate the illegals by legalizing them. Make it even easier to become a citizen; that’s a sure fire way to reduce the numbers coming in.
Even though they were miserably treated, the blacks contributed greatly to our strength. And the natives were even helpful in winning WWII through the “code talkers.”
Only a very little. The problem of immigration has various solutions, and some of them do not involve any changes to border policy at all.LeafByNiggle:
This is a little like arguing that even though the roof leaks we shouldn’t fix it because it doesn’t address the plumbing problem. Whatever else needs to be done, the border needs to be secured.
It is more like arguing we shouldn’t have laws restricting guns because we will always have criminals that will get guns anyway.blackforest:
We will always have people entering the US illegally, but arguing that we shouldn’t try to stem the flow is like arguing we shouldn’t have laws against murder since we will always have murderers.
That is true, but is the quest for racial uniformity one of those ideologies? I don’t think so.
The immigration problem has various aspects, some linked with other concerns, some pretty much independent of others. Clearly some aspects don’t involve any border changes, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address the border problems simply because it doesn’t solve everything.
If the question was simply “What’s best for the immigrant?”, or “Do we want to help people in need?” you might be right, but those are not the questions. The real concern is balancing the needs of different groups, where at some point helping one group comes at the expense of harming a different group. That is, their are competing interests. In determining what is the proper balance in such a situation there is no moral answer, just differences of opinion about what is best.
The church teaches us to help the poor and welcome the immigrant, but she always adds “to the extent possible and reasonable.” She does not tell us which health system to implement, nor does she have anything to say about whether we should or should not build a wall, or implement e-verify.
True, but not relevant since no one has suggested this.
I’ll settle for keeping everyone out who shows himself willing to break the rules by sneaking in.
If they were willing to ‘observe the rules’ then they wouldn’t be here illegally, would they.
That is not an accurate description of the debate. Everyone agrees there should be a physical barrier in some places. And we already have that. The issue is one of priorities and cost-effectiveness.