April 4, 2006

HATE'S A TOUGH SELL IN AMERICA:

Poll: Most Open to Letting Immigrants Stay (NANCY BENAC, Associated Press)

Americans are divided about whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the country, a poll finds. More than one-half of those questioned are open to allowing undocumented workers to obtain some temporary legal status so they can stay in the United States.

At the same time, people doubt that erecting a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border could help to fix such a complex and enduring problem, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Two-thirds do not think it would work.

''You can't go and round up 11 million people and ship them out of the country,'' said Robert Kelly. The Chicago lawyer is among the 56 percent of Americans who favor offering some kind of legal status. ''It just isn't practical,'' he said.

A smaller but still significant share -- 41 percent -- opposes offering any kind of legal status, giving voice to a law-and-order mind-set that bristles at the notion of officially recognizing those who did not play by the rules to get here.


Mr. Kelly puts his finger on the nub of the issue--a country that would round up and deport millions of people wouldn't be American.

MORE:
An Immigration Debate Framed by Family Ties (RACHEL L. SWARNS, 4/04/06, NY Times)

During the heated immigration debate on Capitol Hill, some Republicans have portrayed immigrants as invaders, criminals and burdens to society. But for Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, the image that comes to mind is that of his mother and the day the authorities took her away.

It was 1943, World War II was raging, and federal agents were sweeping through Albuquerque hunting for Italian sympathizers. They found Mr. Domenici's mother, Alda V. Domenici, a curly-haired mother of four and a local PTA president who also happened to be an illegal immigrant from Italy. Mr. Domenici, who said he was 9 or 10 years old then, wept when his mother vanished with the agents in their big black car.

Now 73, Mr. Domenici surprised many of his colleagues when he stood up on the Senate floor last week and shared the story, which he has kept mostly to himself for much of his life.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 4, 2006 9:37 AM
Comments

So, the commies are involved in organizing the marches, eh?

Let's see if that filters out to the public.

Posted by: Sandy P at April 4, 2006 10:31 AM

Don't have to "round up and deport millions of people." Make the odds of not getting caught a little less favorable, and the consequences when you do a little more annoying, and those millions will deport themselves. Many, if not most, may even work through an unbroken system to get back here, and as for the rest, good riddance.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at April 4, 2006 11:30 AM

"Mr. Kelly puts his finger on the nub of the issue--a country that would round up and deport millions of people wouldn't be American."

Neither would a country be American that is majority Roman Catholic and speaking Spanish.

Posted by: NC3 at April 4, 2006 11:43 AM

Nicely put NC3--it's all about hate for your side.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 11:47 AM

No, Mr. Kelley demonstrates a basic characteristic of many Americans - practicality. I share his practicality regarding this issue, not on the merits of the various arguments.

Posted by: Rick T. at April 4, 2006 11:49 AM

Nicely put NC3--it's all about hate for your side.

Anger, OJ. Anger at the unfairness of breakling laws and getting away with it. Anger at the unfairness at people jumping the line ahead of those willing to play the game according to the rules.

And finally, Anger at the LIES you're spreading about your opponents, because you're unable to addressing the respect-for-law argument, and have to SLANDER them.

Ho slander ME.

Hell, you write and publish a book, and suddenly, it's more than just sovereignty that you re-define...

Posted by: Ptah at April 4, 2006 12:25 PM

For those of you who didn't get enough of me and OJ on sovereignty, tune into Victor Davis Hanson on immigration.

A very measured voice counseling wisdom, IMO, and I'm an immigration "dove"

For my part, I agree with OJ on the over all ideology, but wonder whether there is a limit to our capacities.

That should be the direction of the debate.

Posted by: Bruno at April 4, 2006 12:58 PM

"If preferring that America remain English speaking and Protestant is hateful then so be it as it must follow that the same holds true for those who would supplant our culture and transform the USA into a Roman Catholic Spanish speaking third world sh**hole."

Ah, Anti-Papism now rears its ugly head in its debate. Was wondering when THAT was going to pop up.What's next, NC3? Are you going to comment on how we can't have people in this country who breed enough children to field the Red Sox's starting nine?

Posted by: Brad S at April 4, 2006 1:13 PM

So Domenici's mom was an illegal ememy alien during WWII and got grabbed up for it. Too bad, so sad.

Perhaps we should have made him Secretary of Transportation--that would make sure there would be no ethnic profiling used in screening airline passengers.

Posted by: Lou Gots at April 4, 2006 1:30 PM

We don't have to round them up. They will go home willingly once employers will be made to understand that, this time, they will face true penalties for hiring illegals.

Posted by: GER at April 4, 2006 1:32 PM

Ptah:

Anger is so easily warped into hatred. Evil begins with anger.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 1:38 PM

Mr. Ptah, the 'respect for law' argument fails because most people separate the Law(something close to the ten commandments) and the law(speeding tickets, housing associations, etc.). The Law is how we build our communities and the law is the realm of petty thugs and bullies. Every time you push the law of the land angle, I shift more to the other side of the argument. Not fair, but you are getting judged by the company you keep.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 4, 2006 2:35 PM

Robert brings up a good point--our situation with illegal immigration is almost identical to our situation with speeding, and with the same source: democracy.

We The People have set up a speeding system that isn't particularly sensible, but we get by on it: everyone speeds, cops pull over the most egregious offenders, and occasionally one of the rest of us, too. If cops started pulling over everyone, we'd throw a fit. If cops didn't pull over anyone, the same thing would happen. Sometimes, people speed too much & too fast and people die. Sometimes, regular, careful folk going at the speed of traffic are pulled over because a cop needs to fill their quota. It's the system we've set up for ourselves.

Immigration is a near exact parallel--with one important difference. Namely, the stakes a higher on both sides. When the wrong people get through, we get a nationwide network of drug dealers and thugs, or planes flying into buildings. When the wrong people get "pulled over," families are destroyed, communities wrecked and animosities fed.

I don't know that speeding matters enough to work out a better system than what we've got now, but I'm pretty sure immigration does.

Posted by: Timothy at April 4, 2006 7:25 PM

We could slow down without collapsing the economy and becoming an indecent society though.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 7:29 PM

I will answer Robert first, since he has actually TRIED to engage me, rather than evade the issue by snarky personal attacks worthy of a pandering democrat.

I totally agree with the distinction between Law and law, but I believe you are mistaken in thinking that one can openly disrespect law while expecting obedience to Law. Please note that I am respecting your distinction between the two by using your convention of capital letters.

If there is any issue where law is in flagrant disrespect of Law, it is abortion. There is no denying the numbers: killing one abortionist would save hundreds of babies, especially if one got organized and made sure one got every abortionist in the state. Just like you, we knew we were on the side of the Angels, and our opposition were kiddie murderers and demons from hell. HOWEVER, we did not do that. We argued for an approach that respected BOTH Law AND law. We spoke the truth while the MSM ensured we would not be heard. We spoke plainly while the MSM cherrypicked spokespeople and phrases. We protested within the confines of law. We spoke against those who broke law in an effort to uphold Law, even though the MSM printed those condemnations on page 13 of section C and mentioned them not at all on the air. Perhaps you had no faith, but it IS working. AND we have not lost support from those who respect both law and Law. Sure, it's not easy or quick: life's not fair. But it shows that there are ways to change law to MATCH Law without breaking law.

A second problem of your position is that it misconstrues my argument: you think it is about "respect for law", when actually it was "Respect for law". Here's what I mean: What you call "Law" is what C.S. Lewis, in "Abolition of Man", called the Tao. It is the Way, the set if fundamental moral principles that mankind must follow if they are to be truly human and live the moral life. Immigration is the implementation of the Tao/Law as it relates to Hospitality and a recognition of the Equality of mankind, and my objection to OJs misrepresentations was the implication that I was opposed to Immigration, rather than illegal immigration. Not true at all: I not only welcome LEGAL immigrants into my local community, but have aided an IRANIAN with his English, AND have defended him from group-think people who judged him by the company he kept.

However, alongside the mandates of Hospitality and Equality in the Law/Tao are also the mandates of Patriotism, Loyalty, Stability and security of the Community of which you are a part, and Respect for law. The Law/Tao recognizes that grand principles are not enough: they must be translated into nitty gritty requirements that may require enforcement and punishment, and thus the Law/Tao also mandates the principles of Justice and how one decides guilt and innocence. The hard fact of the matter is that, in a Democratic Republic, the majority will make rules that the minority oppose. HOW the minority opposes is vital, because it is possible that they will foul the nest: They will encourage disobedience for various reasons. However, when they become the majority, why should the former majority, now the minority, respect any laws that the new majority make, and which the new minority oppose, since the option of encouraging disobedience to the new laws?

And it was THIS that motivated the Pro-life movement to respect law while working to change law to conform to Law: we knew we NEEDED to keep people Respecting the law, because eventual conformance of law to Law would not be effected if Respect for law was destroyed. Doing so would have been foolishness: it would have been burning the bridge to keep the enemy from crossing over, but which we needed intact to cross over ourselves.

Let's take the Law of the Equality of Mankind: a noble principle to be sure, but it would still be mere mouthing of words here in the South without the Civil Rights Acts and the Voting rights acts. Respect for law was NECESSARY to eventually bring society to actual obedience for THAT Law.

Forgive me if I think y'all a bit venial and base: If you ever do change immigration law (not Law) by encouraging disrespect for law, you're counting on the people who DO respect law to oppose the ones who break it. You DO want to be judged by the company you keep, no?

The third issue has to do with the biblical principle enunciated by Jesus: "He who is faithful in little is also faithful in much." Here's the Oath of Citizenship:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.

The oath expressly states that the soon-to-be citizen will obey and uphold "the law". I presume this to be the law of the land, and not exclusively the Law without regard to law, as that would be a "mental reservation or purpose of evasion". A "fine" start, if they got here ILLEGALLY knowning they were ILLEGAL. Looking at the protestors, it seems to me they do not intend to "entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen." Umm, you DO want to be judged by the company you keep, don't you?

I have to congratulate Orrin for fearing to tread into where you Boldly rushed: His avoidance of respecting my position by omitting the key adjective "illegal", and his focus on my anger to divert people from noticing what I was angry ABOUT, is due to the fact that he DOES know that I was arguing from a basic principle of the Law/Tao, and he had to deny that position to me. The Law/Tao is a balancing act in which seeming opposing principles work to force a moderate course. One of the ABUSES of the Law/Tao Lewis talked about was where people were enamored with one of it's principles and "rides it to death", running roughshod over the counterbalancing principles in a self-righteous crusade, and he cites Pacifism and a variant of Internationalism as examples of abuses of the Law/Tao. In your and Orrin's case, you are riding the Hospitality principle to death, ignoring the counterbalancing principle of Respect for the Host that many protestors obviously do not follow: they not only disrespect law, but that Law. You are riding to death the principle of "Aiding the unfortunate", but say nothing about the principle of Gratitude To Benefactors that many protestors do not follow. Orrin focusses on my anger, hoping to invoke the Law/Tao injunction against hate to shut me up, while ignoring the fact that I am responding to the Law/Tao principle of hating injustice, unfairness, and violation of Law/Tao principles, which injoin me to speak up and act, but all the while adhering to Respect for law. ("Be angry and sin not. Let not the sun go down on your anger." i.e. "If Injustice angers you, have a coldly-calculating plan to fight it before the sun goes down.") Between Orrin, who's trying to embarass me into silence by false imputations, and the Law/Tao, that tells me to speak up, guess which one I decide to follow.

Oh, and while I have mentioned the Pro-life movement: I was one of the early debaters with regard to aboriton on Usenet, the predecessor to the World Wide Web, and became pro-life BEFORE I actually was convinced that the unborn had an inherent right to life. How could that be? I was trying to figure out what my position was, and was forced to the pro-life side because, quite frankly, the pro-choicers (as I called them then) used the SAME smear-and-misrepresent-and-misread-and-misquote tactics Orrin is using against me. I recognized them because they were being used by leftists defending communism. The tactics were introduced first to put down the pro-life side, and when they proved effective, they were enthusiastically adopted by the Democrats and MSM, where they are being used today. Kreeft's "Aborting Socrates", which I read years later, finally convinced me that my intermediate position of allowing abortion in the first trimester was untenable. I suppose I was not as much pro-life as I was anti-aborting-the-truth, but I'm better now.

Posted by: Ptah at April 4, 2006 9:17 PM

You follow your viscera--it's a pretty elemental compulsion.

If we granted them all amnesty tomorrow and let everyone who wants to come and agrees to our Founding principles come you'd not change your mind about them because they're now legal. End of argument.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 9:21 PM

Timothy, my answer to your comment is in the previous one.

What is interesting is that I have NOT discussed immigration at all until Robert TRIED: as you can see, his attempt encouraged timothy to weigh in, and I had an opening to respond. What we had until then was not discussion about immigration, but discussion about attempts to paint one side as evil incarnate in order to avoid the work and messiness OF arguing one's case. As I have said consistently here and elsewhere, I am against ILLEGAL immigration. What I have not said is that I am undecided about how to solve it. From my discussion above, it should be obvious that, if a law is passed, I will obey it, even though I reserve the right to complain about whether it will solve the problem of illegal immigration. Throwing the borders wide open and abolishing the INS is certainly an option: I would oppose it, but I would not DISOBEY it. However, I DO feel like the United states military fighting under the constraints of the Geneva Convention when my opponent clearly doesn't: one gets the occasional doubt as to whether its worth it, but it is a doubt and it is occasional.

Posted by: Ptah at April 4, 2006 9:37 PM

P:

So it's not about whether it's legal or not, you just oppose them.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 9:42 PM

How amusing! I didn't even notice orrin's counter-argument while making my comment about timothy. I had a hunch he'd try to do that, but didn't know he actually would stoop that low.

Oh well. *points to Orrin's post* QED.

Posted by: Ptah at April 4, 2006 9:43 PM

So it's not about whether it's legal or not, you just oppose them.

Now its switching pronouns: I said "it" referring to the law, and he switches it to "them" referring to the illegals. Oh, and the earlier comment to that? He's not actually accusing me of Hypocrisy, but accusing me of a FUTURE act of hypocrisy: short of having a time machine or God's prophetic gift, or monitoring the dreams of three precogs in a tank, there's no defense against that, and thus qualifies as an invalid argument.

Really Orrin, I suggest you STOP DIGGING. Stop taking the lazy way of slander and bile. Stop arguing against the arguer, and start arguing against the argument. I know I made a snarky comment about your attitude after you have published your book, but I really believed your principles extended to your mode of argumentation, so your behavior feels like a betrayal.

And yes, I thought hard about what word to use in place of "betrayal", and think it best reflects my feelings.

I should probably say this: After you started using these tactics, my goal ceased from that of trying to convince YOU: I've learned from my Pro-life experience that anyone stooping to these tactics cannot be convinced because the use of such tactics is a defense mechanism against being convinced. Rather, my purpose became to lay down a series of observations ABOUT you that an objective observer, coming by and reading this in the future, could not only see and compare my comments against yours, but be able to detect when they are used against them in other contexts. Mr. Mitchell merely afforded me an opportunity to show how I would argue if you actually WERE willing to engage. I may disagree with him, but I respect him for actually trying.

Posted by: Ptah at April 4, 2006 10:43 PM

Mr. Ptah, thanks for your reasoned response. One of the problems I have is that to a large degree we aren't talking about laws being passed, rather it is regulations that are being interperted by petty bureaucrats swelled to self-importance. The law is quite clear about the children of American Servicemen, but it still took years to get my sister
her papers because she was born on the Naval Station
at Rota, Spain. As to abortion, it has lead to a lesser respect for the law and the country on both sides. One side can't believe that the wholesale killing of babies is legal, and the other side lives in desparate fear that one day it won't be, and they will be called to account. For the borders to be closed, you would have to get Americans to check the papers of people they did'nt know, and report them if they were not in order. You won't be able to get me to do that. I don't thing you will be able to get more then 10% of the country to do it, and most of them are already busy making our lives nasty, brutish and short.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 5, 2006 12:17 AM

P:

What you might better have learned from your pro-life experience is that abortion is always about hating the baby. Try applying that to anti-immigration, which is always about hating the immigrant.

When you have nothing left to cling to but objecting to your opponents tactics it just means you know you've lost the argument in your own heart.

Posted by: oj at April 5, 2006 12:25 AM

Again, I will reply to Robert first because I do not want my response to him to be colored with my response to Orrin.

Mr. Ptah, thanks for your reasoned response.

No, I thank YOU for giving me an opportunity to engage in REAL argumentation.

One of the problems I have is that to a large degree we aren't talking about laws being passed, rather it is regulations that are being interperted by petty bureaucrats swelled to self-importance. The law is quite clear about the children of American Servicemen, but it still took years to get my sister her papers because she was born on the Naval Station at Rota, Spain.

Excellent point. I entirely agree. Respect for law (little case "l") is equally degraded by such stupidity on the part of the enforcers, and Orrin has a post where legal, US Citizens were deported in the middle of hysteria. Abominable. Unforgivable, and we MUST prevent that.

As to abortion, it has lead to a lesser respect for the law and the country on both sides. One side can't believe that the wholesale killing of babies is legal, and the other side lives in desparate fear that one day it won't be, and they will be called to account.

I am glad that we agree there.

For the borders to be closed, you would have to get Americans to check the papers of people they did'nt know, and report them if they were not in order. You won't be able to get me to do that. I don't thing you will be able to get more then 10% of the country to do it, and most of them are already busy making our lives nasty, brutish and short.

And THIS is the sort of thing that I wanted out of Orrin. I don't claim to have all the answers, and NEED people to make observations like this.

Robert, you are absolutely right, and I thank you for pointing this out. And I will admit to you, that I probably wouldn't be bothered either, but only because any green card presented to me would be faked anyhow, and all the schemes I can think of to make identification secure and unfakeable would require changes to the society that I would not welcome or like, or have holes that Jihadis could drive through. The populace WOULD cooperate, but only during wartime: illegals entering the country for a job to sustain their families are breaking the law, but that's not war. Flying jets into buildings and killing thousands IS war, and confusing the two does not contribute to solving the more pressing problem of the two.

Now for orrin: *grins* Of course I didn't WIN any arguments with you, but that's vacuously true. Your complaint is similar to that of the prosecuting attorney complaining to the defense attorney that "You haven't won your case in court", when the defense attorney has been able to get the case tossed out at the Grand jury level due to gross violations of procedures. How exactly could I win an argument with you, WHEN YOU HAVEN'T MADE ONE YET? All you've done is use ad-homniem arguments: they are a cleverly disguised lot, but all you gave me to work with was the task of pointing out that they were INVALID arguments. Can't build a building on a lot that is full of TRASH.

Oh, and you are quite WRONG that the main problem is hate, both in abortion and in many other issues: The core problem is SELFISHNESS: let men pursue JUST their desires, WITHOUT regard to anybody else, and HATE naturally arises when the conflicts inevitably come. I never met or debated anyone who actually HATED the baby or the fetus on first principles: HATING the fetus meant you had to PAY ATTENTION to the fetus, and doing THAT was the first step to them losing the argument. It was always "me. me! ME!" Hate of the fetus was always a consequence of it getting in the way of what the mother wanted. Indeed, there are cases where the fetus was WELCOMED, as was the case of the East German women athletes who took advantage of the beneficial changes at the beginning of pregnancy to get an edge in the Olympic games without doping: they aborted the fetus the moment the pregnancy proceeded to a point where the beneficial changes would have been absorbed in continuing it.

Not hate.

Just "me. me! ME!"

Posted by: Ptah at April 5, 2006 9:24 AM

Yes, selfishness is the source of hate--because anyone who isn't you is other. You have to begin by objectifying the person, whether baby or immigrant, ands then you can give your anger free reign.

It all begins by asking: Am I my brother's keeper?

Posted by: oj at April 5, 2006 9:30 AM

It all begins by asking: Am I my brother's keeper?

How ironic: That was a response to God's question of "Where is your brother Abel?". One would think that saying "yes" to Cain's question means that we should keep track of all these illegal immigrants, in contrast to Cain's denial that it was his job and duty to keep track of his Brother's whereabouts.

Actually, the real question was one that was NOT asked: "Why was my sacrifice not accepted?" It was easier to use his anger to hate, and kill, his brother, rather than to "not sin" and figure out where he went wrong before the sun went down.

Anger is a great motivator, but it IS just an emotion: whether it is used to hate and kill, or to motivate to action and correction reveals the measure of the person. One either masters it and rides it, or gets thrown by it and trampled under it.

Posted by: Ptah at April 5, 2006 11:47 AM

P:

Yes, God has morally obligated us to be our brothers' keepers. We don't much like it because we're naturally selfish, thus the anger that's all too easy to succumb to.

Posted by: oj at April 5, 2006 11:54 AM

Actually, Orrin, in reply to CAIN saying "Am I my brother's keeper", GOD SAID: "What have you done? The blood of your brother cries out to me from the ground." It wasn't a question God thought was worth answering, and you can't quote anywhere else where it is used in Scriptures.

In fact, after looking at the actual text and its context, I'm amazed at how asinine it is, and how much more asinine it is for us to accept it as morally binding.

Posted by: Ptah at April 6, 2006 7:52 AM

Bingo! All you need to do is believe our moral obligations to be asinine and then the other is fair game. It is all about selfishness.

Posted by: oj at April 6, 2006 7:54 AM
« HOW'S IT GOING?: | Main | ALLAH IS DISPLEASED (via Tom Corcoran): »