1 Documented insanity. The New York Times has been on an extended binge of highlighting the suffering of deported illegal residents. I could probably post several more episodes of the Ethics Alarms “Good Illegal Immigrant ” series every week. The intellectual dishonesty of almost all of these Times stories, like the pro-illegal immigrant movement itself, is impressive. Essentially, they all can be reduced to, “Isn’t it terrible that these lawbreakers have to endure the consequences of their own actions?”
Complementing these stories are periodic opinion pieces like “ICE’s Courthouse Arrests Undercut Democracy,”‘ by César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, an associate professor of law at the University of Denver. He writes a pro-illegal immigration blog, identifiable in motive by its habitual use of the cover word “migrant” to mean “illegal immigrants” and the deliberately misleading word “Immigration” to mean “illegal immigration.” Hernández’s op-ed’s argument follows as the night follows day:
“In El Paso, ICE arrested a woman moments after she requested a court’s help keeping away an abusive partner. Fear and uncertainty caused by this type of courthouse arrest are already keeping people away from the halls of justice. In Denver, the city prosecutor gave up on four domestic violence cases because the victims said they were too afraid of ICE to appear in court. In a nationwide survey conducted in April by the nonprofit Tahirih Justice Center, four out of 10 social service providers working with immigrant survivors of abuse said they had clients who had abandoned legal claims because of fear of what will happen if they call the police or go to court.”
Wait: why were these people afraid of ICE? By immigrant survivors, doesn’t Hernandez mean illegal immigrant survivors? If he does, why doesn’t he say so? His favorite terms are “unauthorized” immigrants, and here and there “undocumented” immigrants, poor things. Whatever happened to their documents?
It’s not a threat to democracy if illegal immigrants are afraid to come to court. They should be afraid to come to court. They should be afraid to take advantage of any aspect of our government or American society. Underlying the professor’s claimed concern for democratic institutions is his contempt for the rule of law. He wants to blur the distinction between illegal and legal immigration to the vanishing point. He quotes the California chief justice as she writes that “the vast majority” of “undocumented immigrants” “pose no risk to public safety.” Is that the desired standard for law enforcement now? As long as a known law-breaker poses no risk to public safety, he or she should be immune from arrest when they turn up in court?
The Times is apparently committed to bombarding its readers with this unconscionable position in perpetuity: our monstrous government has decided to enforce its immigration laws, and the very fabric of our democracy is threatened as a result.
2. CNN Tales. On a related note, this morning I saw a slick TV ad on CNN supporting “Dreamer” legislation. The terms “illegal,” and even the cover words “undocumented” or “unauthorized” were never used, as various Presidents were shown extolling “immigrants.” “Dreamers” were described as “immigrants” who came here as children.
An ethical broadcast news organization should not accept money to run ads that intentionally misinform its viewers.
But THIS is CNN!…and so is this: A CNN spokesperson told Politico…
“CNN will not be attending this year’s White House Christmas party. In light of the President’s continued attacks on freedom of the press and CNN, we do not feel it is appropriate to celebrate with him as his invited guests. We will send a White House reporting team to the event and report on it if news warrants.”
Attacking the unethical and biased way CNN practices journalism is not attacking freedom of the press. A genuine threat to the benefits of freedom of the press is created by organizations like CNN routinely abusing it.
3. Is This The Harvey Weinstein Ethics Trainwreck Headline of the Year? The headline: “Rick Scott Consultant Denies He Used Ice Penis to Hump Mannequin.”
Joshua Cooper, a political consultant frequently employed by Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott, has been accused of mannequin raping and sexual piggery by political foes of They acquired a strange photo that they say is “smoking gun” evidence of his consultant’s vile proclivities, and thus guilt by association attaches, or something.
Cooper swears the photo, which someone took and posted online, was just a badly timed click as he threw away a large slab of ice while competing as a chef in a Memphis barbecue competition.
“It is not at all what it looks like,” says Cooper. You decide:
4. On to human harassment: Matt Lauer was fired today from “The Today Show” after NBC investigated a detailed complaint about inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace by Lauer that took place during the 2014 Sochi Olympics. We learned that this was the first such complaint lodged against Lauer since he took over as anchor of “Today” in 1997, but there was “reason to believe” it may not have been an isolated incident. (Translation: Everybody knew...)
Then NBC viewers were treated to a jaw-dropping emotional monologue by Kathie Lee Gifford about how we are all “broken” and stray from the Lord’s path, and we just have to forgive and love Matt as we love ourselves, and place ourselves in God’s hands, as her partner Hoda Kotb nodded sagely and said, “Yes…yes…how true.”
Oddly, we did not see such empathy and compassion being expressed anywhere on the Today Show when Roger Ailes was sacked, or Bill O’Reilly, or when the Access Hollywood video surfaced. Excuse me if I enjoy seeing the double standards of these hypocrites being exposed so vividly, but I do. I also recall that it was Lauer who allowed Hillary Clinton to lie to his and America’s face when she claimed that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was party of a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
He should have been fired for that.
5. Aaaaall Aboard! Joining Matt on the Harvey Weinstein Ethics Train Wreck is surprise guest Angela Lansbury, who is being skewered for saying this:
“There are two sides to this coin. We have to own up to the fact that women, since time immemorial, have gone out of their way to make themselves attractive. And unfortunately it has backfired on us – and this is where we are today. We must sometimes take blame, women. I really do think that. Although it’s awful to say we can’t make ourselves look as attractive as possible without being knocked down and raped….Should women be prepared for this? No, they shouldn’t have to be! There’s no excuse for that. And I think it will stop now – it will have to. I think a lot of men must be very worried at this point.”
Well, Angela is 92. If women shouldn’t have to be “prepared” to be sexually abused if they are attractive, then why should they “take the blame”? And what is going to stop now? Women trying to look attractive? Right. Men crossing lines of civility, respect and ethics in their courtship and mating rituals? Not when the legal lines change according to which men and women are involved. Men should be worried about what? Women not being as attractive? Suuure. Men who were raised properly and have functioning ethics alarms shouldn’t have to worry at all…unless it is worrying that the new-found power to destroy will prompt some women to abuse that power.
6. Absolutism makes you stupid. Jonathan Turley is as close to an absolutist as you will find regarding the rights of employees to post whatever vile opinions and sentiments on social media they choose without adverse job consequences. Even the professor, however, is wavering on this one.Indiana University Health employee Taiyesha Baker was fired after tweeting,
“Every white woman raises a detriment to society when they raise a son. Someone with the HIGHEST propensity to be a terrorist, rapist, racist, killer, and domestic violence all star. Historically every son you had should be sacrificed to the wolves bitch.”
Nice! And Baker is a pediatric nurse. Turley writes,
“Obviously, some patients would be likely reluctant to entrust their children with a staff containing openly racist nurses….”
“Baker could argue that she never identified Indiana Hospital as her employer and made these comments entirely in her private time. It took research to tie the Indiana University to controversy. The problem is that she expresses a total lack of empathy (if not open animosity) for some of the pediatric patients in her care. While she may have been engaging in shock hyperbole under the protection of anonymity, the concern over her care being influenced by such racist views was obvious.”
Then, wrestling his common sense to the ground in order to hold on to his dedication to an impossible work-private life divide, Turley asks,
“What if she did not speak of her nursing job and merely espoused racist views on social media? Do you think that she should still be fired if tracked down or would you allow her to remain as long as her view did not impact her work as a nurse?”
Well, let me think…OF COURSE SHE SHOULD BE FIRED! Such a public sentiment automatically affects her work as a nurse, because it makes her, and any employer who would allow her around patients, inherently untrustworthy.
Sometimes I wonder about you, Professor.
68 thoughts on “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 11/29/2017: Featuring Vital Questions Such As: Will Women Now Try To Look Unattractive? Should A Hospital Employ A Nurse Who Hates White People? Is That Man Trying To Rape A Manniquin With An Ice Dildo?”
Kathy Lee Gifford? I thought Savannah Guthrie was Lauer’s partner.
The show is all screwed up. Today has a post-Today Today that features Kathy and Hoda.
2- “Dreamers’ were described as ‘immigrants who came here as children.”
Per PEW, the average age of Dreamers is 24.
It gets worse.
The age of majority in the U.S. is 18 yet ~71 % are over age 20. You have to think there are a discernible number over 18 in the ~ 29 % between 16-20
4- My lovely and long suffering wife and I generally watch The Today Show, and it was a surprise, to say the least, when this was announced.
There’s some scuttlebutt that this is payback for him not soft-balling HRC in that September 2016 interview.
Peter Daou, echoing the sentiments of “Team Hillary[?]”
“One by one, we’re finding out the true character of the male journalists who treated Hillary Clinton (and her voters) with seething disdain.”
6- “HIGHEST propensity to be a terrorist, rapist, racist, killer, and domestic violence all star.”
Now, I have read that forcible/aggravated rapists and killers are over-represented in one demographic, but would appreciate this forum’s statistically inclined weighing in on the veracity of her claim?
Terrorist? Only if we regard Middle Easterners as “white.” The Left doesn’t when it wants to protect them. I’ll give her terrorists.
Racist? Only if the definition is rigged so that only whites can be racists.
Killer? No. Serial killers, yes.
Domestic violence? Ask the NFL about THAT.
Check out interracial rape rates.
If Matt Lauer were mean to Hillary, I would hate to think what she would think about that big meanie running
NorthMost Glorious Korea….
The last paragraph in the PEW research page states that DACA recipients have to have been no older than 16 when they entered the US (hence no Dreamer is older than 36). Honestly, this seems fair to me, since Dreamers were brought here through no choice of their own, and got themselves established. It ALSO seems like this would be the best time to phase out the program. Since illegal immigration has dropped due to increased enforcement and a less attractive economy, we’ll have less people slip under the radar for so long.
Diagnosis of the mannequin photo: poor timing, rather than shenanigans.
The placement of all three elements is wrong for a cheeky ice-hump photo. His hips are back and shoulders forward, while a “thrusting” photo op would be just the reverse. The ice looks like it’s outside his hips rather than lined up with his crotch. It also looks like the ice is set to move past the far side of the mannequin, although even if it was aligned it would bump her hip. The positions are more consistent with the early stages of an underhand toss of a weighty object.
Combine all that with his facial expression- he’s definitely not mugging for the camera, and he doesn’t even appear to be looking at the ice/crotch/mannequin juncture but rather past the metal frame (where you’d expect him to look if he was about to throw a big piece of ice in that direction).
Although I think it’s a damn shame we’re reaching a point where society not only scolds and politicizes ACTUAL jokes, but has to score points and assign nefarious motives to a picture taken at juuuuuuust the right moment.
I agree with your analysis completely, Luke.
Just don’t ask why I’ve got complete confidence in what ACTUAL “I’m going to use this inanimate object to hump this other inanimate object” photos look like.
That was a frighteningly detailed analysis of the photo. I like it. The bigger question should be: What, in the name of Mike, is a sassily dressed mannequin doing at a barbeque cook-off in the first place? The second question is whether a person can sexually harass an inanimate object. Oh, the mind boggles.
”whether a person can sexually harass an inanimate object.”
“Corporations Have Rights, Why Shouldn’t Rivers?”
It was only a matter of time:
INANIMATE LIVES MATTER!!
Yeah, why do we assume that if he was fake-humping the mannequin that he was simulating rape, and not passionate, consensual, romance-novel worthy love-making?
Frighteningly detailed? I choose to believe that’s a compliment, and thank you for it 🙂
1: You’re creating a class of people who can be abused with impunity. Go ahead and rape, as long as the victim is undocumented, rob and beat, they can’t go for help.
Guess you’d better hope they never witness a crime against someone who the law actually protects, since they won’t be able to tell anyone or testify in court.
3: No statutory rape joke?
4: Did Ailes, O’Reily, Cosby or Trump beg forgiveness? I don’t know if Lauer had privately, he damn well better do it in a public statement. Then, of course, his victims coworkers and members of the public are free to forgive him or not as they like.
So long as he stays fired. Forgiveness doesn’t mean lack of consequences.
5: Yeah…. No.
Oh great, just what we need, a generation of men raised by wolves. Isn’t sexual harassment bad enough without having to add in butt sniffing?
1. Not true. Those who abuse them will be punished like anyone else. The illegals have have the protection of the law, and in return, they get the consequences of violating the law.
3. No, the mannequin was obviously of age.
4. Do you really think if Ailes had begged forgiveness, the attitude toward his firing would have changed at all?
6. What IS the “Wolves Bitch”? is it like the “law dog”?
1:Those who abuse them will get away because the abused will have to fear seeking help.
3: It’s still non-consensual carnal knowledge of a statue.
4: Lauer also deserved to be fired, it seems. But had he begged forgiveness, at least some people might have chosen to give it to him. It helps to have some redeeming qualities and it still doesn’t exempt one from the consequences of their actions. Forgiveness isn’t redemption, it’s merly letting go of your anger.
6: A mistake, see wolves are closely related to dogs so she must have thought that a wolfs bitch is a female wolf. A female wolf is called a she-wolf.
When I was checking out Paul’s PEW research page above, I stumbled across this: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/victims-human-trafficking-other-crimes/victims-criminal-activity-u-nonimmigrant-status/victims-criminal-activity-u-nonimmigrant-status
Those who are victims of crimes can actually use that to gain legal status.
Will SOMEONE, preferably the illiterate nurse who wrote this diatribe, PLEASE put the likely intended comma after “wolves”? This will eliminate a LOT of unnecessary grief and asinine comment.
According to the Varietypiece, Lauer had a secret button installed under his desk that would remotely lock his office door so he could lock the door after inviting female coworkers into his office, and his victim wouldn’t know she was locked in (and any potential interrupters were locked out). If true, that is really disturbing, and shows some serious predatory thinking.
I don’t know all that much about Matt Lauer, but from what I’ve seen of his career, he can’t possibly have enough redeeming qualities to overcome that level of creepiness, no matter what apologetic words he comes up with.
So can we agree that should be no “Political Consultants Apparently Using An Ice Dildo Principle”?
I suppose there IS a question over how closely related this is to the NTP. What if he WAS making a lewd gesture with the ice? A pelvic thrust and a lascivious grin and all?
Does innuendo carry the same weight as nudity, on the scale of “If it goes public you face the consequences”?
Does it matter whether the naughty joke was photographed before the person entered politics?
What if it were a politician in the photo, instead of just a consultant (since going after a politician because one of his consultants makes dirty jokes, even obvious dirty jokes, is a stretch beyond stretching)?
“Does innuendo carry the same weight as nudity,”
Doesn’t “innuendo” mean something, like LBJ means “oral sex,” in Spanish…?
[just now read Paul’s comment and burst out laughing]
…like “interested” is that condition between a quickie and going back on board for seconds…
My Dear 92 1/2 year old Father would join you with a squint-eyed, wheezing Muttley laugh:
My Dear nearly 90 year-old Mother would roll her eyes with a lamenting sigh, and ask rhetorically: “Paulie, won’t you ever grow up?”
You get points for the Muttley reference.
GOD, I love that Muttley laugh! THANKS for sharing & reminding!
GOD BLESS your parents, too!
They sound much like mine (God Rest their souls).
Yes! This was a remarkably stupid effort (the picture).
Your complaints about the words people use to describe illegal immigrants are starting to ring hollow. I think you are correct to think that people who say “migrant” or “immigrant” instead of “illegal migrant” or “illegal immigrant” are trying to sway the argument. But so are you when you insist on calling them “immigrants” even though all illegal immigrants are also obviously immigrants, or when you object to calling them “undocumented” even though not-doing-the-paperwork is an essential cause of their illegality. Just because your side got some laws passed doesn’t make you right, and it’s not unusual for people who disagree with you to refuse to accept your biased framing of the issue. But if you insist that the legal status of their migration is so important, maybe I should start calling them “people whose travel has been declared illegal by bigots.”
Among the key reason Trump got elected is because people are tired of being called racist for wanting the law enforced.
Trump spent the morning re-tweeting white supremacists. Trump is in office because a lot of people are racist.
Well, see? Consequentialism: “Trump is in office because a lot of people are racist.” That’s not necessarily so bad, now, is it?
So what should we call these non-racists who want racist laws enforced?
Baloney. You can’t possibly believe this, or if you do, ponder why. A lesion, maybe. Too much MSCNBC, perhaps.
1) I have no “side”. I’m a lawyer. I believe in enforcing the law. I study history. I know that maintaining sovereignty is essential. I follow the issue. I know that the arguments for allowing illegals to remains here, other than the practical fact that there are too many to kick out, are intellectually dishonest.
2) “But so are you when you insist on calling them “immigrants” even though all illegal immigrants are also obviously immigrants.”” Dishonest argument, Mark. There is material distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, and I insist on making that distinction when their legal status is at issue. Nobody can possibly misconstrue who are being discussed here. In contrast, the dropping of “illegal” is a deliberate effort to misrepresent the issue.
3) Focusing on a misleading element of the problem under discussion, as you just did, is dishonest. A driver without a license isn’t an “undocumented” driver, he’s an illegal driver, because being undocumented is illegal. Same here. Stop rationalizing deceptive euphemisms.
4) There is nothing biased about my framing of the issue, and just saying so is not a valid, fair or persuasive or respectable argument. Your last statement is flat out stupid. Illegal immigration hasn’t been “declared” illegal. It IS illegal. Since it is illegal, it is idiotic and obnoxious to refer to wanting to enforce an unambiguous law as “bigoted.” That’s cheap ad hominem: “These people are bigots, so their opinion is obvious wrong.” Bull shit.
5. I vigorously support all legal immigration, at a reasonable and healthy level, from all regions and of all races and creeds. How do you get bigotry out of that? Objecting to law breakers is not bigotry. Calling it that, however, is dishonesty.
6. See, I know you’re a smart guy. The fact that this pathetic non-reasoning is the best someone like you to come up with is evidence of how devoid of substance the pro-ILLEGAL immigration position is.
My son is an immigrant, you know. A legal one. Took us weeks and cash to make sure he was legal.
“I have no ‘side’,” you say, followed by an entire paragraph describing your side.
“There is material distinction between legal and illegal immigrants” Of course there is a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, but the materiality of that distinction for ethical analysis is what we’re arguing about. Again, you’re trying to frame the argument so that you win, and then calling me dishonest for pointing that out.
“Illegal immigration hasn’t been ‘declared’ illegal. It IS illegal.” In other words, your argument is right because armed government agents are enforcing it. Cool ethics theory, bro.
“I vigorously support all legal immigration, at a reasonable and healthy level, from all regions and of all races and creeds.”
We’ve had this discussion. You’re against illegal immigration. When I suggested opening up immigration to allow a lot more people in, you were against that too. So you’re against both illegal and legal immigration. Unless you just happen to believe we
“I believe in enforcing the law,” you say, and “Objecting to law breakers is not bigotry.” Does that apply to all laws? E.g. U.S. citizens of Japanese origin who evaded internment? Escaping slaves? If yes, then you get points for consistency, if not for compassion. If not, then can you explain how you draw that line?
No, you moron, illegal immigration is illegal because there’s a law against it, that’s what illegal means.
A nation has a right to set immigration policy at a level it believes will inure to its benefit, not its detriment. If that means keeping out unskilled people who have nothing but the claim they are refugees and allowing in doctors, lawyers, and engineers who might contribute something, that’s its right, same as it’s our right to decide we aren’t going to get involved in a fight between two tribes in an undeveloped nation chopping each other up, but we will get involved in a clash between two nations that threatens safe passage of a vital resource.
That last paragraph is pure deflection and an attempt to play gotcha. You can do better than that.
Your first paragraph argues (with the usual immigration restrictionist’s tautology) that the important thing is that they broke the law, but your last paragraph refuses to take a stand on the importance of breaking the law…so, whatever… Let’s talk about the middle paragraph.
“A nation has a right”– Says who? I have rights. You have rights. People in general have rights. I don’t buy that social constructs like nations have rights in the same sense that people do, and Jack’s invocation of the magic word “sovereignty” doesn’t change that.
Among the rights that people have is the right to travel where they want and interact with whomever they want, as long as they do not trample on other people’s rights in doing so. So if an immigrant gets here on a ride someone willingly gave him, rents an apartment from a willing landlord, gets a paycheck from a willing employer, buys goods and services from willing sellers, dates and marries a willing woman, spends time with willing friends, who the fuck has the right to stop them? Who could possibly have a moral right to use threats of violence to tear them away from employers, friends, and family, many of whom may be our fellow Americans? No one.
Ah, so you don’t believe in the concept of border sovereignty. Well, I’m afraid virtually the entire civilized world disagrees with you. Nearly every nation that has people coming there as tourists, immigrants, or refugees expects them to at least go through some sort of system, and those that try to slip around that system are not looked kindly upon. And there is a good reason for this; a nation that does not police its borders ceases to be an independent nation.
One problem with your scenario is, the apartment, job, etc. could’ve gone to a native. It’s like taking your kids’ toys and giving them to the new family that just moved in. Why should the newcomers feel entitled to goodies just by coming in? And that’s assuming the BEST case scenario about your hypothetical immigrant. What if they’re a criminal, or a terrorist (most Muslim terrorists, including the 9/11 hijackers, have been either immigrants or the immediate children of immigrants. We’ll never know if we don’t at least vet them first.
Lastly, what about votes? If you let anybody just walk in and expect a vote, you risk a hostile takeover of your country, it’s merely corporate-style instead of military-style.
“I’m afraid virtually the entire civilized world disagrees with you.” And it wouldn’t be the first time the entire world was wrong!
“A nation that does not police its borders ceases to be an independent nation.” Are you sure? The United States didn’t do that for the first hundred or so years, and mostly did quite well. Can you think of examples where a nation actually failed because of uncontrolled immigration? I’m not talking about an invasion. I’m talking about a situation where a nation still protected private property and other rights of its residents — still preserved the right for people to withhold consent in contracts, housing, employment, marriage, etc (all the things I mentioned above) — and nevertheless failed due to liberal immigration policy. (Maybe a massive refugee crisis caused by a war? But I’m not sure that wouldn’t fit the lawless invasion scenario.) Usually, immigration is a good thing for a country.
“One problem with your scenario is, the apartment, job, etc. could’ve gone to a native. It’s like taking your kids’ toys and giving them to the new family that just moved in. Why should the newcomers feel entitled to goodies just by coming in?”
If I want to take my kids’ toys and give them to some other family, that’s nobody else’s business. And if the natives think they have the right to tell me (a fellow native) who I can or cannot hire for my business or who I can or cannot rent an apartment to in my building, then they are the ones who are acting entitled.
“What if they’re a criminal, or a terrorist” That’s a good reason for screening, but it doesn’t justify our current quota system. (I favor a system kind of like driver’s licensing — not a free-for-all, but almost everyone who’s not dangerous can get one.)
Note, by the way, that the criminals and terrorist issue does not apply to Jack’s “Good Illegal Immigrants” who have proven themselves by living here for years without committing terrorist acts or serious crimes. Living peacefully and productively in America for years is a form of vetting.
(Because someone is undoubtedly sputtering with rage at me for saying they aren’t criminals when they’re here illegally, I mean that they haven’t done anything illegal while being here except being here. Also, I added the qualification of “serious” crimes because many people, natives included, commit minor crimes — running red lights, speeding, driving on an expired license, even minor thefts and fighting — without facing punishments anywhere near as devastating as deportation. And illegal entry into the United States is a less serious crime than any of those I just mentioned. In fact, the first time someone does it is not a crime at all.)
“I mean that they haven’t done anything illegal while being here except being here.”
And fugitives from justice haven’t done anything illegal since they skipped bail, except continue not to face the lawful consequences of their conduct, every second of which is illegal.
And as Marion Barry said, it you don’t count all those murders, D.C.’s crime rate is really pretty good.
You see, the fact that a commitment to the certifiably bonkers (and in most cases, cynically political) position that illegally entering the country is no big deal and should be shrugged off unless the illegal immigrant does something else illegal, and really bad, can be adopted by someone like you without embarrassment or self-awareness of how ridiculous it sounds makes the whole area near useless to discuss. That quoted sentence is every bit as tortured and desperate an argument as the Breitbart tool’s defense of Roy Moore by comparing him to Ringo Starr. When someone gives a self-refuting argument and thinks (or insults me by suggesting that I might think) it really has persuasive weight, I can only conclude that there is something wrong with them, or that they are lying to me. In either case, they can’t be reasoned with.
“And fugitives from justice haven’t done anything illegal since they skipped bail, except continue not to face the lawful consequences of their conduct, every second of which is illegal.”
I think it depends on the crime they were accused of. If they were locked up for, say, homosexuality or miscegenation, then I hope they never get caught. I like to think I’d feel the same way about escaped slaves and Japanese-Americans who dodged internment. And damn the people trying to punish them for it.
“Can you think of examples where a nation actually failed because of uncontrolled immigration? I’m not talking about an invasion.”
There are at least a few scenarios which started out with immigration, but turned into a huge upheaval (usually involving armed conflict) with the hosts. One cute meme I’ve seen occasionally is a picture of Native Americans with the caption, “Be careful with your immigration laws, we were careless with ours.” A lot of the usurping of Native American territory didn’t start with armed invasion; it started with white people simply setting up on land that looked empty. The natives would let them use the land in exchange for consumables (there’s that freedom of trade you were talking about) and when those consumables ran out, they’d give up more land for more consumables. When the newly installed federal government tried to clear boundaries between the United States and the Indian Nations, both sides would ignore those boundaries, and as you know it went downhill from there.
Then you’ve got scenarios like the Texans settling in what was then Mexican territory, and Russia presumably sticking up for Russian people in Crimea.
Now you say you still favor a screening system, but not our current quota system. Do you want to drop quotas entirely? Everyone who wants to come get’s a yes? They will still need to wait in line to be screened, because Immigration only has so many people who can only do so many background checks at once. What about those who still skip the line and sneak in, either because they don’t want to wait or because they know they’ll flunk even your minimal screening. Will you THEN be in favor of deporting them, even if they call you a racist meanie?
I foresee several other problems with unchecked immigration. Let’s say you’re a business owner, and while you’re not exactly rolling in dough, you’re making enough to get by. Your community announces a new, welfare program for low-income residents, and they’re going to pay for with increased taxes on businesses. You’ve looked over the proposal, done the math, and concluded that you can’t afford these new taxes, not without raising prices or laying off employees. So you vote “No.” But your community has a bunch of immigrants who don’t have work, or who are working at minimum wage or lower (since there are no quotas, the labor supply exceeds the demand). and THEY vote yes. Due to their numbers, the measure passes. Good deal for them, bad deal for you.
But wait, is it even a good deal for them? Because the same politicians ALSO want on-demand abortion, and the immigrants don’t like that because they’re Catholic. Said politicians also want environmental regulations that would hurt the farms the immigrants work on. And maybe those politicians turn out to be as corrupt and untouchable as Hillary Clinton. Yet every time the immigrants think about changing their vote, they get told, Animal Farm-style, “Surely you don’t want the racists and capitalists back, DO YOU?”
So that’s why I think we need quotas. Exactly how high those quotas should be is certainly worth discussing, but there needs to be a limit at some point. Also, whatever immigration rules we do have we need to enforce. Your permit’s expired and you didn’t bother to get it renewed? Goodbye. You committed a felony after we let you in? Goodbye. You snuck across without even bothering to get any kind of permit? Goodbye. You’ve been spouting off on social media for jihad? Yeah, I don’t think we’ll be renewing your permit.
But I do agree with you on this much regarding immigrants; if we’ve got the jobs for you, and you’ve got the pioneer spirit (minus the shoving natives aside bit) where you’re not looking for handouts, but looking to be left alone to follow your dreams, and you respect our laws and culture, by all means come on in!
Boy, talk about an easy question—ask any Native American. Texas is another obvious answer—and many nation in Europe are heading that way.
Point of order: Americans were invited to Texas, and given citizen rights so they would improve the territory and pay taxes (which they did.) Mexico decided they would void that citizenship and take those improvements for their aristocracy. The new Texicans thought otherwise.
Not a case of uncontrolled immigration at all: the Americans were DOCUMENTED immigrants.
But I agree with the general point.
“But if you insist that the legal status of their migration is so important, maybe I should start calling them “people whose travel has been declared illegal by bigots.””
You could start calling them “shot dead invaders” when just a few more (DOCUMENTED!) people decide to disregard a few other laws.
It’s not a threat to democracy if illegal immigrants are afraid to come to court. They should be afraid to come to court. They should be afraid to take advantage of any aspect of our government or American society.
So do you consider Plyler v. Doe an improper decision? Or possibly an irrelevant decision? (A school district won’t need to educate children that are deported when ICE does it’s job.)
That was a 5-4 decision. Doesn’t it make you wonder if it would fail today? And what the heck the fallout would be if it did?
1. It’s a coordinated effort by the Trump resistance – the Houston Chronicle is following right along in lockstep with the NY Times. Sob, sob, sniff, sniff. Poor little illegal aliens! Laws are such a HASSLE! Consequences for law-breaking are SO UNNECESSARY!
Especially when running a stop light at an empty intersection of two empty roads in the middle of the night.
Garrison Keillor was also sacked this week by Minnesota Public Radio for behind the scenes sexual misbehavior. This probably represents supreme cowardice on the part of MPR, who I would bet knew it was going on for quite a while but looked the other way because he was bringing in the ratings. Now that he’s retired and, at 75, probably not long for this world, they sack him to make sure he goes out in disgrace.
No big loss, I stopped listening to him regularly more than a decade ago after one too many satirical bits featuring George W. Bush with an overly wide Texas twang and talking like a stroke victim, and altogether after he put new words to “You’re the Top” praising Obama. I appreciate political humor, but not naked partisanship masquerading as humor.
A pattern is starting to emerge now where many, many otherwise liberal power players are being exposed as treating the women in their organization or the women they know as a personal dating pool or harem. It’s not that most of us didn’t know it already, I worked for an attorney who was the stereotype of the liberal Brooklyn Jew for three years, and he used to treat the younger secretaries like eye and hand candy and never hire a law clerk or legal intern who was other than a good-looking woman (and who got the same treatment). When I was in college a good-looking guy two years older than me claimed he was the biggest male feminist on campus…and screwed a VERY wide swath through the coeds, most of whom were happy to let themselves be used by the good-looking guy.
As a plain, plain-spoken, struggling, but honorable and hard-working guy who most women wouldn’t give a second look to, I have to smile a little at seeing some of the smug, arrogant types who figured as long as they gave lip service to feminism they could grab all the ass they wanted, or, apparently in Lauer’s case, engage in out-and-out sexual assault, and everyone, or at least everyone who counted, would either look the other way or just keep cheering them on, get brought down for the very offenses they keep trying to pin on our side of the aisle.
No one gives even the slightest thought to honoring George W. Bush (whose wife basically saved him and he is duly appreciative) , Mike Pence (who seriously honors the bonds of matrimony and is mocked for it), or someone like Jimmy Stewart (who never looked sideways at another woman in Hollywood after he married Gloria MacLean, and they stayed married until her death from cancer after 45 years).
No one ever gives HALF a thought for the average guys who are plain-spoken and hard-working, and a little too short, or a bit overweight, or who started to lose their hair early, or who had to wear glasses long after most people had gone to contacts because they had tricky prescriptions or their parents’ insurance didn’t cover eyewear and they couldn’t spring for contacts (or wouldn’t, I think we’ve all heard of “birth control glasses”). In fact, guys like that are usually the ones who not only get reported to HR if their eyes wander for even a second but who women lie about harassing them.
Frankly, the women who let themselves be used by the good-looking, the rich, and the powerful, and the good-looking, the rich, and the powerful who use them because they know they can get away with it deserve each other. Let the abusers fall, and let the used who become the abused get not a damn thing out of it.
6. According to Baker this would mean Barack Obama’s mother raised a detriment to society.
Ha! I was thinking the same thing about that statement and here you beat me to the punchline!
That excuse would imply white-collar criminals should be immuine from arrest.
I wonder if he would apply his logic to white-collar criminals.
Migrants are also a problem in Europe.
‘“the vast majority” of “undocumented immigrants” “pose no risk to public safety.”’
This is one dishonest (and illogical) argument I truly hate! You know who poses absolutely NO risk?…the person who isn’t in the country to begin with. Any crime committed here by an illegal is one that wouldn’t have occurred at all if it hadn’t been preceded by their “low risk” crime of illegal entry.
5. Well Angela may be 92 now but she wasn’t always. I loved her as the slut maid Nancy in “Gaslight” and Em the dance hall prostitute who tried to run off Susan in “The Harvey Girls” (“On the Atichison, Topeka, and the Santa Fe” is probably my all time favorite film musical number). She was quite a looker back then.
Wow. I think the first time I ever saw Angela Lansbury was in Murder She Wrote. She was just a wee bit older than in this photo. I did enjoy that show for quite a while (and my mother loved it). I think the other exposure to her that I’ve had was from her singing “Need a Little Christmas” — from Mame as I understand it. A neat song.
Angela was Mrs. Lovett In the original “Sweeney Todd” and The Countess in “Dear World,” as well as the voice of Mrs. Potts in Disney’s Beauty and the Beast. Yet all of this was a second act to a long, very successful film career as a member of the MGM company, with major roles in “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,”, “Ivanhoe,” Danny Kaye’s best movie, “The Court Jester,” and most famous of all, “The Manchurian Candidate.”
She also tried admirably to corral Orson Welles’ Will Varner as Minnie Littlejohn in 1958’s “The Long Hot Summer.”
“CNN will not be attending this year’s White House Christmas party. In light of the President’s continued attacks on freedom of the press and CNN, we do not feel it is appropriate to celebrate with him as his invited guests. We will send a White House reporting team to the event and report on it if news warrants.”
So CNN is not going to the party . . . except for the team from CNN who are going to the party.
Yeah, but they promise not to celebrate so it’s not really like going to a party.
“and report on it if news warrants.”
Which means, only if Trump commits a faux pas.
”Which means, only if Trump commits a faux pas.”
I’m not a betting man, but the odds of The Donald unleashing his inestimable Id are pretty darn good.
Definition of migrant
: one that migrates: such as
a : a person who moves regularly in order to find work especially in harvesting crops
b : an animal that shifts from one habitat to another
Definition of immigrant
: one that immigrates: such as
a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence
b : a plant or animal that becomes established in an area where it was previously unknown
Thus we see that there is a VAST difference between “migrants” and “immigrants”. Migrants are assumed to be already within the borders of a country and are moving around to find work. Migration is not defined as “illegal” although migrant workers may be so. Immigrants, on the other hand, must cross a border, and, by definition, intend to take up permanent residence. Immigration may be, unlike migration, either legal or illegal, but is not, and cannot be, if illegal, ethical, since it involves crossing a legally defined border without legal permission. Let’s at least get the terms we are using straight.
Pingback: Ye Olde Ethics Alarms - Windypundit
The answers are;
1: I hope not !
2: No !
3: I hope not !