‘Tis The Morning Before Christmas Ethics Warm-Up, 12/24/18!

Merry Christmas!

1 Christmas gift ethics. What’s your opinion of a relative who says that the only thing she wants for Christmas is for family members to donate to her favorite leftist candidate for City Council? I don’t recall the Christmas tradition being “Make people do whatever you would do” Day, do you? Let’s have a Christmas Eve poll!

2. Change: I now believe “the wall” is necessary and the President’s resolve is ethical. My change of heart comes after watching all Democrats and many Republicans simultaneously say they want secure borders and then continue to encourage illegal immigration with their rhetoric and votes. The wall is necessary to send an unequivocal message, which has been Trump’s message since he announced his candidacy: “Come here legally, or don’t come. If you get here by breaking our laws, you are not welcome and will never be welcome, no matter what you do.”

Correctamundo!

Anti-Trump GOP Senator Bob Corker claims that the showdown over authorization of funding for the Wall is a “made-up fight, so the president can look like he’s fighting, but even if he wins, our borders are going to be insecure.” It’s not a “made-up” fight at all. Republicans have been afraid to upset Hispanic-Americans and Democrats want nice, reliable, left-voting poor folks to swell the voting rolls, so they have sent deliberately mixed messages, particularly regarding the “Dreamers.” If a wall did nothing other than stop “migrant caravans,” it would be worth it.

Trump also promised a wall. Breaking promises is not the same as a lie, unless the promise was a lie when it was made, but Trump, who we have been told lies incessantly, has also been far more determined to fulfill campaign promises than any President within memory. (Obama promised to address the national debt. He promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He promised  that lthe use of chemical weapons by Syria would be the “red line.” He promised to be President of all the people, not just Democratic base demographic groups. He promised that if you like your heath care plan…well, you know the rest.)

It is the Democratic position on the wall that is a sham, because the money involved is a relative pittance. They are grandstanding, and the President is not.

3.  Slot machine ethics. How did I miss this? Three Las Vegas visitors who hit multi-million dollar jackpots playing slot machines are fighting the casinos’ efforts to void the pay-offs on the grounds that the machines “malfunctioned.” The episodes all occurred earlier this year. Unless there is a prominent notice on or around the slots pointing out that there is a limit to the payoff in any single play and specifying what the limit is, I think the casinos are obligated to live with losing whatever one of their evil, manipulative, Skinnerian machines cough up.

This isn’t like a malfunctioning ATM machine. Players are led to believe that whatever comes out when they pull the lever or push the button is theirs. If casinos can say that their machines malfunctioned and they are not responsible for the result, then gamblers should have the same option: “I’m sorry, but my limit on gambling losses was just $500. I shouldn’t be responsible for the additional $10,000 I lost on blackjack, because I malfunctioned.”

4. KABOOM! Well, it will be Christmas without the top of my head, I guess: From the university where I once taught ethics to law students:

Grading Ain’t Just Grading: Rethinking Writing Assessment—Ecologies Towards Antiracist Ends

With
Asao B. Inoue
February 1st, 2019

SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

PLENARY SESSION: THE LANGUAGE STANDARDS THAT KILL OUR STUDENTS: GRADING AIN’T JUST GRADING

9:45 AM -11:00 AM
MGC 3-5

Open to all faculty who preregister

This plenary will argue against the use of conventional standards in college courses that grade student writing by single standards. Inoue will discuss the ways that White language supremacy is perpetuated in college classrooms despite the better intentions of faculty, particularly through the practices of grading writing.

BREAKOUT SESSION: CREATING ANITRACIST WRITING ASSESSMENT ECOLOGIES IN WRITING COURSES

11:20AM – 12:35PM
MGC 3-5

(Note: We believe this workshop will be most helpful to Writing Studies faculty, but others are also invited to sign up.)

This interactive workshop will focus on redesigning writing courses’ assessment ecologies in ways that reduce the negative effects of a single standard of writing used in conventional grading practices. It will offer an alternative to such grading practices, labor-based grading contracts, and a comprehensive theory of assessment that may lead participants to other ways of redesigning their courses’ assessments.

 

Wow. Teaching students to express themselves clearly and competently, and rewquiring them to master speaking and writing in standard English is racist, apparently.

Writes Steven Hayward at Powerline: “Memo to American University alumni pondering year-end donation appeals: Not. One. Dime.”

Bingo!

4. Ethics Quote Of The Week: Senator Rand Paul. I’m not and have never been a fan of Rand or his father, but the Senator deserves a salute for directly challenging the bias and hypocrisy of many critics of the President’s troop withdrawal decisions. On Twitter, Paul announced as part of his annual Festivus “declaration of grievances” (if this confuses you, you need to brush up on your “Seinfeld.” Cultural literacy alert!):

“The entire foreign policy establishment of Washington, DC, who two years ago were swearing Trump was going to start multiple nuclear wars. Now they’re mad because he is stopping two wars. How about you just admit you hate the President, love war and have been wrong for the last twenty years on every part of foreign policy?”

Paul elaborated on “Face the Nation.”

5. P.M. Forni. Professor Forni deserves a separate post, but I can’t be sure I’ll get to it, and I don’t want to neglect him. From his obituary in the Times:

P. M. Forni, a professor of early Italian literature who became a leading exponent of civility in our own discourteous times, died on Dec. 1 in Towson, Md. He was 67….

Dr. Forni was a faculty member at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore when, in 1997, he became the principal founder of the Johns Hopkins Civility Project, which not only examined the importance of civility in human society but also encouraged the practice of it on campuses and in communities through campaigns with bumper stickers, buttons and speaking programs.

Dr. Forni, who directed the project (now known as the Civility Initiative) for many years, also wrote two books on the topic, “Choosing Civility: The Twenty-Five Rules of Considerate Conduct,” published in 2002, and “The Civility Solution: What to Do When People Are Rude” (2010)…

Dr. Forni would remind people that “we have been struggling with these issues for 2,000 years,” Mr. Buccino said by email. “He would also remind us that while there is much civility work still to be done, it was important to note how much progress we have made over the centuries.”

Many things make his death feel personal. I have his book, “Choosing Civility,” and read it. He was right. He  I served on a panel about civility with him. We had a long conversation. He was very friendly and supportive, but then one would expect that from a civility advocate. He was younger than I am, and he died on my birthday, December 1.

6. And Michael Daigneault, who is still kicking: Michael was the lawyer who first got me involved with ethics as a profession. He consulted with me on the use of non-traditional legal ethics teaching techniques, and when his revolutionary ethics training and consulting company caused him to be recruited hired to run a large international ethics institute, he generously turned over his company and clients to me. Michael is now running Quantum Governance, and as ethical as ever. A recent post during the holidays:

75 thoughts on “‘Tis The Morning Before Christmas Ethics Warm-Up, 12/24/18!

  1. Fulfilling a promise is not somethimg that falls within the president’s duties. Promises he made on the campaign trail were to the portion of America that elected him. His duty is to all Americans.

    His duty is to make good policy.
    Secondly, the president made a promise that wasnt based in good evidence over sound immigration policy. Most people are here illegally because they overstay their visas. Not to mention the extreme inefficiency of a border wall: it violates countless eminent domain laws that the DHS was never able to fix the last time they tried strengthening border security in 2006. Trump has consistently mismanaged and been dishonest about the costs of the wall.

    The promise was also made as a fear tactic considering immigration has been on the decline for years, most people living in the states affected by this approve of immigrants in their communities (hence the rise in sanctuary cities) and the effects to our economy have been largely positive. I also believing lying about the effects of Mexicans (“theyre sending over their worst, rapists and murderers”) is extremely unethical propaganda.

    Bob Corker is right and I fail to see how the fact that he is not a fan of the president (something he has a right to do) has a bearing on a valid opinion. The way I see It, congress has no obligation to waste tax dollars on a useless government project just because an irresponsible presidential candidate promised something absurd and has to fulfill it

    • Fulfilling a promise is not something that falls within the president’s duties. Promises he made on the campaign trail were to the portion of America that elected him. His duty is to all Americans.

      Actually, it would seem that if he won that he would have a responsibility to fulfill his campaign promises. What you are saying is that there is a large number of those who don’t support those campaign promises and openly oppose them. Therefore, there is a division within the population.

      The promise was also made as a fear tactic considering immigration has been on the decline for years, most people living in the states affected by this approve of immigrants in their communities (hence the rise in sanctuary cities) and the effects to our economy have been largely positive. I also believing lying about the effects of Mexicans (“theyre sending over their worst, rapists and murderers”) is extremely unethical propaganda.

      What you are not seeing — and do not want to see of course! — is that the movement which seeks to limit immigration is linked to a ‘nativist’ movement that wants to begin to limit the number of immigrants from brown countries. It is as simple as that really. The object is to limit the brown immigration and instead encourage white (European) immigration. What is the purpose of this? To recover and to rebalance to US demographics. To stop the ‘browning’ of America. And to help to encourage white America to maintain a numerical superiority.

      Once you put the facts on the table, and once you a) either recognize the need for such policy-shifts as I just stated, or b) oppose them with the very breath of your soul, you will be in a position to 1) see more clearly what is going on at a demographic level, and 2) know who to side with and who to oppose.

      There is absolutely nothing wrong, in any sense nor at any level, for European Americans to advocate for this (re)whitening (or de-browning if you wish). Just as you might say that a project of ‘browning’ is good (there is a video of Vice President Biden describing why it is good and necessary and just and ethical) and just as you might advocate for it, by the same logic it could be opposed. It is, in fact, as simple as that. To wish to ‘keep America (largely) white’ is in no sense wrong, unethical nor immoral.

      It is made to seem so by those who are adept at handling sophistical rhetoric and *guilt-tripping*.

      The way I see It, congress has no obligation to waste tax dollars on a useless government project just because an irresponsible presidential candidate promised something absurd and has to fulfill it.

      I personally think that a long wall from one sea to the other is a fantasy. But a higher wall in certain areas will definitely help. But what is most necessary is a political will to stop unauthorized immigration. And, as you indicate by your discourse, since the nation is divided (and dividing) there will not be a united political will, but more battles. Until something snaps. At one point or other, I think you could agree, these social conflicts will come to a head and will erupt. How will they be resolved?

      It is not absurd to want to strengthen the border, given its permeable nature. What is ‘absurd’ is the declaration of absurdity! What also is absurd (in the literal sense) is that American industry have benefitted from and encouraged undocumented laborers for decades and decades. American industry, in this sense, is one of the authors of the problem! And a further absurdity, which will also prove difficult, divisive and tragic, is the developing social conflicts based in deliberately engineering the demographics of America (begun 50 years ago). These are Marxist-inspired projects and are now and will be very destructive to US institutions, and for this reason must be opposed. But who can do it? And this connects *the problem* to other globalist enterprises and their influence in changing the demographics of various countries.

      I am the only one on this blog who speaks as frankly as this. Do not think that Jack or anyone else thinks (nor speaks) as I do: they all of them do not. If anyone else thinks as I do they do not say so. I just have a big mouth (an no one can get to me to hurt me!) 🙂

      • “Actually, it would seem that if he won that he would have a responsibility to fulfill his campaign promises. What you are saying is that there is a large number of those who don’t support those campaign promises and openly oppose them. Therefore, there is a division within the population”

        Yes we are a divided population. That does not refute my point in any way that a president has obligations to fulfill campaign promises (a selfish motive as it’s done to get elected) that supercede actual national security, fiscal responsibility, or maintaining the integrity of a nation that is welcoming to all its citizens.

        “What you are not seeing — and do not want to see of course! — is that the movement which seeks to limit immigration is linked to a ‘nativist’ movement that wants to begin to limit the number of immigrants from brown countries.”

        I actually was hoping to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not seeking an overtly racist agenda. To simplify all people not from Europe as brown misses a lot of nuance as to their value systems and skill sets, but more to the point, it’s by all definitions racist, and I try not to use that word lightly. Most people agree that discriminating against people by race is wrong, It is also illegal, unconstitutional, and not sound policy. I’m not sure what to say beyond that.

        • Thank you for your interesting comments.

          Yes we are a divided population. That does not refute my point in any way that a president has obligations to fulfill campaign promises (a selfish motive as it’s done to get elected) that supercede actual national security, fiscal responsibility, or maintaining the integrity of a nation that is welcoming to all its citizens.

          I see your point, of course. It has been said that we cannot hope for a class of politicians to successfully guide the Nation. They are in it for the short-term; play to the demos; are highly corruptible. And so is the demos for that matter.

          I understand and accept your point that you feel Trump (and perhaps his class) is acting against national security, fiscal responsibility, and the integrity of the nation. My position is now and has always been that people who advocate for those things — even if they are rhetorical constructs (not saying this is so in your case) — do so in good faith. I do not dismiss ‘liberals’ nor the ‘progressives’ for that reason. Nor nativists populists I should add.

          I actually was hoping to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not seeking an overtly racist agenda. To simplify all people not from Europe as brown misses a lot of nuance as to their value systems and skill sets, but more to the point, it’s by all definitions racist, and I try not to use that word lightly. Most people agree that discriminating against people by race is wrong, It is also illegal, unconstitutional, and not sound policy. I’m not sure what to say beyond that.

          The problem with that word — racist — is that the use of it immediately shuts down possible communication. I say this quite sincerely. We have to stop using that word (along with a whole group of other words). I define myself as a ‘race-realist’ but even that is not good enough a term. I believe that one’s entire *self*, from the somatic and biological (genetic), across an entire band of human considerations, needs to be considered, and needs to be talk-about-able.

          I do not at all disagree with you when you challenge me on the use of a vague and general term like *brown*. It is, on one level, a convention of language, but a necessary one in order to create a juxtaposition to the designator of ‘white’. And as you know (I’d imagine you do) there are now on-going attacks on ‘whiteness’. I have come — through a loooonnngggg — intellectual process — to understand this *attack on whiteness* as extremely severe, and meaningful, and dangerous, and it has severe ramifications for what I call ‘the Occident’ or ‘Europe’. I define muyself as ‘identitarian’ and I assure you that this is different from what I take you to mean with the term ‘racist’. To be quite truthful I see different cultures and ethnicities, and specific cultures and civilizations, as having unique gifts and accomplishments that by definition render them *superior* one to another. Different. Valuable. I do not have issues or problems with ‘distinction & hierarchy’. But these are philosophical categories for me. I am not a social activist.

          I think that you will notice — we will all notice — that our European world (Europe, the Southern Cone, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US) has now entered a phase that might be said to be an antidote to excessive liberalism. There is going to be a reversal of liberal trends. Hard to say what will result. But it is within this *context* that I will say that those who think like me — who see the world as I do — are not enemies. But we do envision something different than the (so-called) multiculturalism which is part of a constructed system achieved dubiously.

          If it serves you to shut down the possibility of hearing what I have to say, and what we have to say, then I would say ‘go for it’. But I do not recommend that choice.

          Most people agree that discriminating against people by race is wrong, It is also illegal, unconstitutional, and not sound policy. I’m not sure what to say beyond that.

          Fair enough, as far as it goes. Yet you do recognize that the Dulles brothers, through CIA machinations, engaged in social engineering in Guatemala. If this is so, then you might also be able to see that similar shadow-forces operated in the US in the Postwar to *engineer* the construction of a Multicultural System with an economic (and social) vision as its goal. And you might further be able to see that this System is now an *export* delivered by military war planes to far-flung places.

          There is a great deal to say ‘beyond that’. There is a great deal to be said about many many things. But it requires a person with a mind free enough to consider difficult things. It should be noted that one of the main objectives of so-called intellectuals in our present (those who masquerade as such) do more to shut down conversation than to open it up. With me conversations are ever-opening! Never do I wish to shut them down.

          • Excuse me, I might have thought you were ‘Orrin’. I know that if people have not registered here that they can enter a name. And I thought you were the same person. If so, sorry. But my comment should still make sense.

    • I’m only going to address one talking point, since it’s one that has been bugging me for some time, and seems to be used more frequently recently:
      “Most people are here illegally because they overstay their visas.”

      Well, so what? To begin with, that’s suggesting a false dilemma; if burglars enter through the front door more often than the back, that doesn’t mean you don’t bother to lock the back door. Additionally, I’ve yet to see a good breakdown of these competing populations. The statement is made as if the makeup of these groups is to be assumed as being equivalent, but is that the case? Could one population be heavy with skilled programmers and guest lecturers, fluent in English, who can pay their way, and the other uneducated, unvaccinated, unskilled laborers? I don’t know, but it it would seem to be good information to consider if we’re not going to try to address both circumstances (as we should). To belabor analogies a bit more: If rattlesnakes are invading your yard through a hole in the back fence, and squirrels hopping over from the oak tree in front, you might set a priority as to which group gets attention first. One thing is easily observed…There are no caravans of thousands of visa-abusers demanding entry.

      OK, I said I was just going to address the one issue, but even though it’s true, I had to snicker when reading this: “…congress has no obligation to waste tax dollars on a useless government project…”. Someone should tell them, I guess?

      • Creating an entire presidential platform about locking the backdoor when the front door demands more of your attention and very easily obtainable studies show that is intellectually dishonest.

        Not to mention that yes thwre have been industries such as agricultural industries and fishing in the Chesapeake Bay that have been starved for labor because of these changes. The vast majority of people who work and live alongside these immigrants want them.

        Also, wtf is this argument about keeping promises? A president doesnt have an obligation to keep a campaign promise that takes priority over his other needs. Especialy because a president is making those promises to win an election or reelection. But a government should keep promises to its citizens. If children who had no choice about immigration came here at the age of 4 and the government tells them to register to be legal, it doesnt matter if administrations change in the minds of those citizens. The cancellation of DACA was completely unethical and promotes lawlessness

        • Children who had no choice about immigration until they reached majority in which case they had a legal obligation to self-report. DACA was not a law, but an EO, and all EOs are subject to review and change. What promotes lawlessness is creating legal benefits for breaking the law, as in “I break the law, but my children get to be citizens.”

        • OK, you’re just repeating yourself without making any kind of case. Prove to us that the “front door” demands more attention merely because of gross numbers (more squirrels being of lesser concern than more rattlesnakes, per my earlier analogy), or that it should be addressed to the exclusion of the other, rather than citing a vague “very easily obtainable studies”. It will take a lot more data to make that call…a comparative analysis of what harm or benefit accrues from each. Right off the bat, we know visa overstays have gone through at least some screening process (Per a little info I’ve found from Pew, they are also more likely to go home of their own accord, and the largest single group is Canadians, for whatever that’s worth).

          What people who work with/around unskilled illegals want is of no particular importance.

      • Your robber analogy is weak.

        I think it’d be better to say, just because I stopped one robber at the door and got him kicked out of my house doesn’t mean the robber that sneaked in and hid in the closet 20 minutes earlier and the police didn’t find isn’t still a robber in my house.

    • “Fulfilling a promise is not somethimg that falls within the president’s duties.”

      True, but this is an ethics discussion. Everyone is ethically obligated to keep promises if possible, and also obligated not to make promises they have no intention of keeping.

      • How can you not apply that to DACA? We made a promise to people that if they registered with the government they wouldn’t get deported. We are breaking that promise.
        How do you measure the ethics of keeping a promise against all the other things a president is obligated to do?
        His promise to uphold the constitution, to spend tax dollars wisely, to represent all Americans equally, etc should supercede any campaign promises.

        I would also argue that the validity of the promise figures into whether he had an obligation to keep it. If I said I am gong to cure Ebola by making it mandatory for everyone to drink diet pepsi, should I imprison people and force feed everyone diet pepsi? That would make the world a better place?

        On the last sentence, an educated populance should know that a President does not solely have the ability to make or influence government policies unilaterally because much of the decision-making process goes through congress. For us to expect and support a president to act unilaterally when he has no such support from Congress is wrong as well.

        Ethically, none of this works

        • Again, DACA isn’t legislation, and even legislation can be repealed or reversed. It isn’t a “promise,” nor is it a commitemnet that subsequent governments can’t reject. DACA was Obama’s promise, not “ours.”

          You are hopelessly confused! You are arguing for DACA while saying that a Predident’s unilateral orders are unethical.

          Seriously, arguing vociferously when you don’t have your facts straight wastes everyone’s time. Do better.

  2. Also there have been something along the lines of two or three migrant caravans ever (its a relatively new phenomenon) and for the most part they have applied for asylum.

    You’ve just openly stated that you want to not come into the country because you dont want them tilting elections towards democrats. Either that or you believe that we (democrats) only want humane and sensible immigration policy (which up until 5 or 6 years ago was a bipartisan issue if you recall the gang of 8) because we want to win at the polls. Is it ethical to use human lives as pawns in politics? Youre accusing us of doing so but we only want to provide these people the opportunities that have been provided to our ancestors and immigrant peers since the founding of our nation and mutually benefit.

    • You’re accusing us of doing so but we only want to provide these people the opportunities that have been provided to our ancestors and immigrant peers since the founding of our nation and mutually benefit.

      Fact: US policies in Central America, to protect *business interests* in the ‘banana republics’ (1970s and 1980s mostly but American has intervened for about 100 years) have hindered proper development in those regions. In addition there is the fact that Latinos have extremely backward social and government institutions that are incomparably inferior to those of America and Europe. I speak as a Latina! (Trust me on this…)

      Unfortunately, to some degree, the crisis in Central America has come about because of bad policy choices on the part of the US.

      Yes, it is a noble and necessary enterprise to offer help to Latin America. How? Not by absorbing them! But by refusing to absorb them. By insisting that they turn back to their own polities to rework them through activism! To build wealth in their own regions. To confront corruption (and their own corruption).

      Allowing millions and millions of Amerindians (and Central American Mestizos and Zambos) is a very very bad demographic policy for the US. But, to really understand why you’d have to be a ‘race realist’ and to be capable of clear thinking.

      Most of the Mexicans that come are from the poor classes, and the Nation of Mexico benefits by their own voluntary expulsion because conditions are so poor in Mexico. It has been described as an escape valve. Allowing Mexicans to immigrate to the US is bad policy for Mexico insofar as by allowing them to jettison their own poor classes, those classes do not go to work on bettering their own conditions there. The American Liberal, of course, aids & abets in this. That Mexicans uproot themselves and go to the North to work and send back money … is not a good policy for Mexicans, their families, their communities.

      To come to a country seeking work … cannot then be a good basis for proper citizenship. These people do not care about America other than that they can make better money here. They hardly have enough of an intellectual base (lack of foundational education as many of them have second or third grade levels of education) to care for (and understand) Mexico.

      Not making this up!

      • the fact that we did bad things to Central America (like the Dulles brothers abetting a guerilla faction to overthrow a stable Guatemalan government to inflate their stock) means that we have more of a responsibility to improve the lives of those affected than people from, say, Haiti or Syria or Turkmenistan (although maybe I’m mistaken and we have conducted bad policy that affects them).

        I’m not suggesting flooding the gates and allowing everyone to come in but our economy and demographics could certainly let in more people than we are letting in now and there were no adverse affects of how many we took in before (the Trump administration chose to reduce asylum quotas). Furthermore, the Trump administration has not led the way towards any sort of meaningful reform or betterment of anyone’s lives through this other than scare tactics and irresponsible facts (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/caravan-lie-sparked-massacre-american-jews/574213/). The Trump administration as well as many stalwark Conservatives has blocked attempts to increase the number of immigration judges which would provide people what they’re legally entitled to: A day in court, at a speed that isn’t commisserate with what is essentially imprisonment and torture.

        The idea that they don’t care about America seems like a specious argument. Many supporters of the Trump administration are the industrial sector who care so little about America that they’re willing to move American jobs overseas if government standards aren’t relaxed. Many people who care about America aren’t particularly good citizens of the Earth since they are ok with 24% of Bangladesh (the world’s 8th largest country in population) being underwater in 30 years. Most American-born teenagers are thoroughly bored in civics classes and I’m guessing would skip those in colleges that don’t require it as gen-eds and many Americans don’t vote. To suggest these people care or don’t care about America because they like money is ridiculous. I’m not sure how you judge a sincere motive for America.

        • They don’t believe that 24% of Bangladesh will be underwater, and they are legitimately unsure whether they or the US can do anything about it anyway. As to the first, hype me once, shame on the scientists; hype me repeatedly, shame on me; hype me 6,642 times with predictions that don’t pan out, I’m an idiot.

        • The fact that we did bad things to Central America (like the Dulles brothers abetting a guerrilla faction to overthrow a stable Guatemalan government to inflate their stock) means that we have more of a responsibility to improve the lives of those affected than people from, say, Haiti or Syria or Turkmenistan (although maybe I’m mistaken and we have conducted bad policy that affects them).

          This is a very interesting area. It has to do with ‘complicity’ and with ‘culpability’. And it has to do with ‘the making of amends’. Since it was a faction within government that usurped proper government functions, it is fair to say that that faction is ultimately responsible. Most people, I would imagine, if they would have knowledge of the ‘real history’ of US policies, would not support them. People then have to be *tricked* into accepting policies that would be unpopular.

          And here we come to a crucial point: the manipulation of the demos by factions within it that usurp power.

          My view — and it has been influenced by nativist populists — is that the government is not to be trusted. I take a view that has much in common with Sam Dickson (here.) I would have to say that the governing structure must not be trusted and any reference to *it* and *them* as a *we* is to be avoided completely. We cannot speak of the machinations of government as if it is a singular person (or the third person plural). We have to radically distinguish ourselves.

          I was influenced by a book called Bringing the War Home by Kathleen Belew. She proposes that the Vietnam War led to terrible outcomes in terms of social radicalization and a radical anger and even hatred that was unleashed. You cannot do what the US did there and expect not to have *repercussions*. You cannot have such policies *over there* and think they will not bleed back *over here*. Those repercussions need to be studied. But many nativist populists of the extreme and radical Right (and the Left of course) had their origin there.

          The idea that they don’t care about America seems like a specious argument. Many supporters of the Trump administration are the industrial sector who care so little about America that they’re willing to move American jobs overseas if government standards aren’t relaxed.

          One simply cannot trust these people. That is how I look at it. There was a time, I gather, that people lived in smallish communities — a county perhaps — and had some relationship to the businesses and the people that surrounded them. Possibly some effect, some *voice*. Now, the enterprizes are colossal in scale. They supersede borders. They are not *accountable*. They interpenetrate and supersede governments.

          • Alizia, you are very much the opposite of me in terms of view points and on first glance, I would think your views are crazy, but you are about as close as you can possibly get to convincing me of your points and I at least leave this discussion with the knowledge that your point of view is well thought out. The other participants on this thread make me want to throw up and I’ve gained little from those exchange but I appreciated this exchange with you..

        • the fact that we did bad things to Central America (like the Dulles brothers abetting a guerilla faction to overthrow a stable Guatemalan government to inflate their stock) means that we have more of a responsibility to improve the lives of those affected than people from, say, Haiti or Syria or Turkmenistan (although maybe I’m mistaken and we have conducted bad policy that affects them).

          So if a girl was mean to a boy, she has a duty to share her vagina with him?

          You people are just like the Incel movement.

    • Youre accusing us of doing so but we only want to provide these people the opportunities that have been provided to our ancestors and immigrant peers since the founding of our nation and mutually benefit.

      the whole pro-illegal-alien sentiment rests upon on a foundation of entitlement, much like the Incel movement.

      • You’re accusing us of doing so but we only want to provide these people the opportunities that have been provided to our ancestors and immigrant peers since the founding of our nation and mutually benefit

        This kind of fatuous rationalization really deserves a simple “Yeah, right. Dream on” response and little more. The same nonsense, and it is nonsense, can be used just as reasonably—as in “not at all”—to justify theft, robbery, burglary and worse. The laws and nation itself has changed in 250 years, and so do the rules. This is called life and reality. Our prehistoric ancestors wanted a better mate for the gene pool, and killed a neighbor to get her…and rape her. No laws to stop it. And it worked. It doesn’t work today. Neither does illegal immigration. Obviously. Claiming otherwise is either denial, dishonesty, or stupidity, and none of those are possible to debate.

        • Oh come on, sir, the onus is on you to show that immigrants are bad. My side of the aisle is asking for the same attitudes on immigration that the gang of 8 had: Not rampant xenophobia.

          At last some people on this board have at least openly admitted they don’t like immigrants.

          Whether immigrants are welcome here should be determined by what people and the market think. I believe the vast majority of Americans still value the immigrants as people and the economy needs them to:
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/many-maryland-watermen-deny-a-crab-crisis-is-trumps-fault-except-it-is/2018/05/07/0703a6c2-5205-11e8-9c91-7dab596e8252_story.html

          What the Trump administration has done is virtually nothing. Our country needs to afford theese people due process and immigration courts

          • If possible, try to stick around and get a bit more familiar with people’s opinions and ideas here. I think I can help a little vis-a-vis Jack’s position. It is based in a legal understanding of the proper means of getting entry via properly carried out and legal immigration processes. Because illegals are here illegally, they are eo ipso law-breakers. A law-breaker has not a great deal of ground to stand on. A law-breaker is also in a questionable position ethically.

            I have never heard Jack say that *immigrants are bad*, and certainly not that immigration is bad. I do not think he would make any distinction about where the immigrant comes from nor about the ethnicity of the immigrant. The rule of law as it is presently interpreted and the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the courts would be the standard.

            Whether immigrants are welcome here should be determined by what people and the market think. I believe the vast majority of Americans still value the immigrants as people and the economy needs them to.

            To my ear, that is a problematic statement. First, in a Republic there is a certain distance between a direct political sentiment by one of the demos. What the people and what the ‘market’ think have to go through certain processes through which laws are formed and regulated. Curiously, you can reverse what you say but you;d wind up with a position that you might not like: if the people and the market decide that they desire to restrict immigration, or control who and from where, that would be a popular decision, but you might not find it ‘right’ ‘sound’ or ‘ethical’.

            The fact of the matter — if one were to be totally honest — is that people on the coasts tend to be far more liberal in regard to immigration, whereas people in the rest of the country have issues with it. It is those people from the *interior* who voted for Trump. They seem to want more controls. They likely have their reasons (protection of their own jobs and prospects; the infusion of strange cultural strains into their communities; a sense that they are not in control of their own destiny and that *elites* rule and determine).

            ‘Business’ definitely likes immigration, that is my impression. It lowers wages, and there are (I guess) more transactions. But business is not capable of making good long-term decisions. You may recall that in Plato’s Republic that the business-class is not allowed a determining governing position. A huge issue (that many don’t want to face) is the degree that *business* has infiltrated governing processes.

            Immigration should really be determined by communities and by states. It should be on the basis of ‘compatibility’ and ‘integratability’ (excuse the neologism). Note that when the policy was to encourage immigration from Europe that there was easier (but not un-problematic) integration. I advocate a rational reversal of present immigration. Stop immigration from the Third World, increase immigration from the First World. I say it in plain terms: Make America White Again. If anyone has a problem with that, I suggest that they examine their own race-prejudice! 🙂

            You will notice that I say things that are nearly unsayable in our present. I do this as a conscious choice. I force myself to do it. If what I say is unethical, I challenge you to demonstrate it.

          • Oh come on, sir, the onus is on you to show that immigrants are bad. My side of the aisle is asking for the same attitudes on immigration that the gang of 8 had: Not rampant xenophobia.

            At last some people on this board have at least openly admitted they don’t like immigrants.

            What makes it so bad to say no to immigration?

            Is it so bad for a girl to say no to sex after a boy bought her an expensive dinner?

  3. The biggest problem with illegal immigration is that we do not enforce the laws.

    Not the ones against being here illegally: the ones about hiring those who are here illegally.

    You would not need a wall if certain CEOs faced jail time for such hiring.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.