The Church and Immigration Policy

[Jeff K.]

I am no fan of unlimited immigration, since that is really a euphemism for invasion.

I am however for something less draconian than "kick em all out". But I think we all agree the border must be substantially strengthened regardless of the question of what to do with those already here is. Like any triage, you stop the bleeding first (or inflow if you will) and then take additional steps.

The argument presented, in my view is weak, perhaps the weakness is structural, but it seems weak.

[LT123]

Babble. If you wish to seek the Balkanization of an area, have everyone claim their common cultural inheritance is of primary importance. So you end up with a Balkan type system of small nation states and ethnic cleansing.

Otherwise you cannot help but have a struggle between distinct ethnic groups who attempt to hold on to their comfortable traditions rather than adjust. In effect calling all those outside your own ethnic group, "unkindly" for not accepting your peculiar background as the paramount culture to be emulated.

Cultures constantly interact and seek dominance, it is the nature of cultures to do so. Mexican culture over Yaqui culture, Spanish culture over Aztec culture. European over African. In the interaction and struggle the dominant group changes and adjusts to those precedents that work best with their cultures. Other traditions are tossed on the wayside.

To take the European model and claim to see a pattern is "cough cough" akin to thinking Asterix and Oblix are an accurate representation of the Gaul. But then, that is merely a quibble regarding the size of the sampling, but as such it leads to all kinds of erroneous interpretations.

What I find interesting is the presumption of demonization is that of the culture living in the country to where the people immigrate. Considering the experience of Europe and Africa, is there justification for calling Europeans "white devils", or for Europeans taking on the "white man's burden" aka Rudyard Kiplings view. The demonization exists substantially on both sides and in many cases demonization of the otherside is stronger in the less or non dominant culture coming into a less familiar land. Oh but lets not look at those "patterns".

What we see in essence is the one sided contemplation of the navel seeking to "demonize" one side of the argument in hopes of making their side of the argument look stronger. Or do some of not recognize the beam, er pattern in our own eyes?

In fact it makes it more difficult to resolve immigration issues when people claim the demonization exists on one side while ignoring it occuring within thier own camp. If you knew much about history, you would tend to see that. But if you don't, well demonize away.

The question, or pattern to be studied, if you will, that should be answered is really tied to the church and after giving it some thought, there are two points that really should be addressed.

1-What is the church doing world wide in regard to the movement or immigration of talents from one nation to another. Is it encouraging or discouraging, or is it taking a distinct path (I have my views I may share later).

2-How does a trans national church handle the interaction between cultures under its own umbrella without alienating a people? What could governments learn from church leadership? What could Caeser learn from Christ when seeking to have obeisance rendered unto him?

Um, wow, I clearly don't make myself clear. Alas, I don't mind having my historical knowledge exposed, weaknesses must be known to be overcome. To be sure, I don't favor carving the land up along ethnic lines, I ain't pro-demonization, I am against ethnic cleansing, culture isn't identical with skin color, and those who prefer the life found amidst the beauty of the beaches of cancun instead of the mountains of the wasatch or not unkind to the utahns.

So, to best articulate my views, what droopy said.

However, I will cling to my view that a common way of life in a community is important for that community. For example, us (we?) utahns, that bristle at change aren't always in the wrong.

BTW, I think you bring up a fine point on discrediting arguments through demonization.

[Droopy]

I am no fan of unlimited immigration, since that is really a euphemism for invasion.

I am however for something less draconian than "kick em all out". But I think we all agree the border must be substantially strengthened regardless of the question of what to do with those already here is. Like any triage, you stop the bleeding first (or inflow if you will) and then take additional steps.

The argument presented, in my view is weak, perhaps the weakness is structural, but it seems weak.

I'm not aware of any serious people on the side of realistic immigration control who are of a "kick 'em all out" mentality. Having said this, allowing the perhaps 20 million illegals who have already come here and remained here to simply stay here without consequence is just another flouting of our own laws that sends the clear signal to foreign peoples and their governments that the United States has lost faith in its own values and principles and has no intention of controlling its own borders or enforcing its own laws, and if we are not serious about our own, why should they respect them?

This is why the Mexican military and drug cartels with military equipment have no compunction about shooting at border patrol officers or American citizens across the border. They know there will be no response, and that, most likely, we would prosecute and imprison any member of law enforcement or the military to dared to do so. The doctrine of multiculturalism has so morally and intellectually disarmed us, as a people, that we would quite literally rather perish than defend the principles under which we live, and the civilization they have created.

We may with profit, look at the U.K. and western Europe for a preview of where things are headed here.

[Jeff K.]

I agree with you, Utah's culture definately isn't in the wrong. I often wish parts of it could be transplanted to CA, our state would make more sense that way.

Sorry if I cam down a bit hard. I presumed (and apparently wrongly) that those questioning the immigrant culture were the only one demonizing.

[Droopy]

As an aside, this is a very clear indicatoin of precisely why immigration, in the uncontrolled and third world oriented sense in which it is now underway, should probably come under serious review:

[frankenstein]

I am no fan of unlimited immigration, since that is really a euphemism for invasion.

But "amnesty" is a euphemism for invasion. I personally witnessed Immigration Attorneys tell clients "lay low, stay out trouble, another amnesty will most likely granted in about 5 years"; word gets out and people still come here illegally because they know that the US would rather cower to illegals and political groups than try and maintain any respect for its own laws.

all in all, I think it is a violation of a US Citizens rights to separate the US Citizen from their family simply because the other family members are here illegally.

I also do not think amnesty is the answer. Amnesty disproportionately favors those who were born in the western hemisphere.

Many people throughtout the world would come to the United States, legally or illegaly, but are precluded because they were not born north or south of the US borders.

[Jeff K.]

But "amnesty" is a euphemism for invasion. I personally witnessed Immigration Attorneys tell clients "lay low, stay out trouble, another amnesty will most likely granted in about 5 years"; word gets out and people still come here illegally because they know that the US would rather cower to illegals and political groups than try and maintain any respect for its own laws.

No, it isn't. Invasion is a practice, an act. The people have come illegally (you can say they already invaded if you wish). Making an accomodation, accepting some and not others, is a type amnesty. Amnesty is a release from punishment, it is not carried out by the offending party. It is not invasion. Conflating words does not help the situation, it only expresses a strong emotion that overcomes reason. I don't really care what lawyers say, they are ethically neutral. I do care what the reasoning may be and why a decision might be made.

Think that there is a positive aspect that can be drawn from allowing a process to integrate the illegal immigrants. To borrow an anology of the Roman empire. They did nothing to allow for integration. It created a standing foreign population. If we have a process, then we can create a stronger nation.

This of course must be after the borders are reinforced.

Amnesty disproportionately favors those who were born in the western hemisphere.

It is the right of nations to disproportionately accept some over others. For instance I am not keen on anarchists being allowed to immigrate.

[frankenstein]

No, it isn't. Invasion is a practice, an act.

however ever many numerous persons illegally crossing the border, other illegally staying because they count on amnesty because they are told they can count on amensty being granted...that all seems like the definition of invasion you put forth.

If we have a process, then we can create a stronger nation.

You mean a stronger nation that tells its citizens "Do not wave the American Flag, or show any signs of being an American on a certain day in May because it is offensive? Or a stronger nation that does nothing to keep thugs and hooligans from from hanging the American Flag upside down whilst another countries flag is hung above the disgraced American flag? Illegals aliens can not integrate, by their very presence they have shown they do not respect the US.

It is the right of nations to disproportionately accept some over others. For instance I am not keen on anarchists being allowed to immigrate.

Yes it is right, because by way of the legal process, by way of showing respect for the law, all have the same process to follow. It is entirely unfair and immoral to grant amnesty so disproportionately to peoples who flaunt our laws and at the same time claim some of "right" to be here.

The parable of the wedding guest in the wrong attire seems appropriate here, the guest who climbed over the wall was thrown out.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 15 May 2010 - 08:35 AM, said:

No, it isn't. Invasion is a practice, an act.

however ever many numerous persons illegally crossing the border, other illegally staying because they count on amnesty because they are told they can count on amensty being granted...that all seems like the definition of invasion you put forth.

Whether they count on amnesty or not is irrelevant. Amnesty is not the equivalent of invasion. You are looking at what someone else is doing, not what the home country is doing. A country cannot invade itself.

If we have a process, then we can create a stronger nation.

You responded:

You mean a stronger nation that tells its citizens "Do not wave the American Flag, or show any signs of being an American on a certain day in May because it is offensive?

Has nothing to do with the process. Indeed it may be a reaction because no process is in place.

Or a stronger nation that does nothing to keep thugs and hooligans from from hanging the American Flag upside down whilst another countries flag is hung above the disgraced American flag?

See above.

Illegals aliens can not integrate, by their very presence they have shown they do not respect the US

Yes, they can integrate. There are many illegal aliens from past generattions whose families have become and are strong US citizens. I would dispute the point you made. Illegal aliens by their presence have many overriding issues such as providing for their family, looking for a better future, some escaping crime. I do not see disrespect as an overriding motivation. One can interpret crossing a border illegally as disrespect for that law, not necessarily for the entire nation or the potential it holds for their family. Often it comes down to wieghing options and having faith in the future elsewhere. We need stronger borders to ensure our decision making on who may or may not cross. But I think an acomodation could be made for those who haven't acted badly here, even as they ignored the rules for crossing.

If we had been stronger in our border control, the issue of what to do now would be moot.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

It is the right of nations to disproportionately accept some over others. For instance I am not keen on anarchists being allowed to immigrate.

Yes it is right, because by way of the legal process, by way of showing respect for the law, all have the same process to follow. It is entirely unfair and immoral to grant amnesty so disproportionately to peoples who flaunt our laws and at the same time claim some of "right" to be here.

I have never seen amnesty as an "immoral" act. It is an act of mercy, and so I have difficulty reconciling your view of amnesty as "immoral" with the amnesty received being done as mercy.

[hagoth7]

...To presume that if one does not agree with you there is only one alternative....

Jeff,

If you go back and read the part of my closing statement that you chose to snip out, you might see that I said something much more relevant. What I said was that if someone thinks I'm wrong....I would ask that people at least be kind. Translation: in a topic this important, kindness in both dialog and action could mitigate or break a pattern that has unfolded elsewhere...several times. Whether people agree that those patterns bear relevance in America, or that we can (or need to) learn from the past in the here and now, I urge that we be considerate to those less fortunate.

With that clarification, if you still feel such a stance is arrogant...then I would quote from an enjoyable story:

[frankenstein]

I have never seen amnesty as an "immoral" act. It is an act of mercy, and so I have difficulty reconciling your view of amnesty as "immoral" with the amnesty received being done as mercy.

True story:

Man and son come into the office, they seek guidance on the process of getting the wife and daughters here legally from africa. The man and son are told the process and it is explained it will take about five years before they can see their family. The man laments "if we just lived on this side of the world we could just sneak across", lament acknowledge by myself and others in the room.

With in two weeks of meeting this man another couple comes in, seeks guidance on how to obtain legal status, they are told that they are barred for a certain number of years, but are also told "lay low" another amnesty is sure to granted in the next five years.

How would the story end if amnesty was granted this year. The man wanting to get his wife and daughter here legally from Africa still has to wait 3 years; the thousands upon thousands who have given you, me, law, justice, the snub their whole life become legal without consequence. Isn't it fundamental to the Gospel that mercy can not rob justice?

All in all, the other thousands upon thousands, who have already paid upwards of 2,000 US$ a person are told by the US "Thanks for following the law, thanks for the money and BTW we can't arsed to allow you into the US for the next 5 - 10 years....ummm so see yah then" yet at the same time thousands upon thousands who have virtually done nothing but take the US are given a free pass = immoral

I would agree with amnesty IF AND ONLY IF all the people already in the INS pipeline - paper work processing - are told they can come on in FIRST. Reward those who have followed the law first.

[ERayR]

True story:

Man and son come into the office, they seek guidance on the process of getting the wife and daughters here legally from africa. The man and son are told the process and it is explained it will take about five years before they can see their family. The man laments "if we just lived on this side of the world we could just sneak across", lament acknowledge by myself and others in the room.

With in two weeks of meeting this man another couple comes in, seeks guidance on how to obtain legal status, they are told that they are barred for a certain number of years, but are also told "lay low" another amnesty is sure to granted in the next five years.

How would the story end if amnesty was granted this year. The man wanting to get his wife and daughter here legally from Africa still has to wait 3 years; the thousands upon thousands who have given you, me, law, justice, the snub their whole life become legal without consequence. Isn't it fundamental to the Gospel that mercy can not rob justice?

All in all, the other thousands upon thousands, who have already paid upwards of 2,000 US$ a person are told by the US "Thanks for following the law, thanks for the money and BTW we can't arsed to allow you into the US for the next 5 - 10 years....ummm so see yah then" yet at the same time thousands upon thousands who have virtually done nothing but take the US are given a free pass = immoral

I would agree with amnesty IF AND ONLY IF all the people already in the INS pipeline - paper work processing - are told they can come on in FIRST. Reward those who have followed the law first.

I think I could agree with this.

[hagoth7]

You shouldn't skip large sections of the post...

In a topic this important, I'm willing to rewind a bit.

[1.] Mine was a historical and factual rebuttal showing exactly why they were different.

I wouldn't categorize it as a rebuttal - or as historical.

But of course the Roman and American dilemmas are different.

They reflect different eras, laws, and peoples. But that doesn't mean what you might prefer.

Faith has obvious differences from a mustard seed.

But that doesn't mean we're supposed to close our eyes to the similarities between the two.

More to the point, human nature is still much the same.

Which is why we can learn/draw from past events - if we're willing.

[2.] Yours was an interpretation of a rather shallow historical point of view...[Rome and Germanic immigration]

[3.] ...While the movement of people was something they had in common

That alone is sufficient to make it relevant.

....almost nothing else is.

Oh?

Consider also that the those who enter the US legally are not treated shabbily but are guarranteed all the rights that those who have been in the US for generations have.

Plate tectonics since 9/11. It's a different landscape.

Founding fathers might be disheartened to see how some unalienable rights have become categorized/treated as if they are alienable.

Guaranteed equal rights? Under the law?

You're misinformed.

Indeed many come here and start businesses, one of the most interesting aspects is the number of Mexican immigrants who came legally that have started businesses and developed considerable influence in both the US and Mexico.

? Rome's immigrants did the same anciently - and rose to positions of responsibility and influence.

Stilicho is one of numerous such examples.

Again, you don't have to argue that there are key differences between Rome and America.

But even then, this isn't one of them.

With this we see little to no resemblence with Rome.

Instead, you've illuminated MORE parallels between the two.

[hagoth7]

cont'd

No ethnic group is favored by the constitution,

And? Via immigration quotas, some nations of origin are explicitly/legally favored.

But I don't follow how that would have supported your preferred point either way.

...and the rule of law allows for democratic changes in immigration law.

Rome adapted its policies and practices as well. As did England. Etc.

And that process aggravated the problem.

Such changes to appease public outcry can actually worsen things - IF it doesn't address/solve the underlying problem.

So the American situation can actually aggravate the problem - if legislators were to focus more on creating laws that got them reelected than those that mitigate the dilemma.

America has learned and in effect is much more open...with the immigration issue...because unlike Europe, the US shares an extensive border with a third world country.

Bordering a less privileged region makes Roman history MORE relevant.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff,

If you go back and read the part of my closing statement that you chose to snip out, you might see that I said something much more relevant. What I said was that if someone thinks I'm wrong....I would ask that people at least be kind. Translation: in a topic this important, kindness in both dialog and action could mitigate or break a pattern that has unfolded elsewhere...several times. Whether people agree that those patterns bear relevance in America, or that we can (or need to) learn from the past in the here and now, I urge that we be considerate to those less fortunate.

With that clarification, if you still feel such a stance is arrogant...then I would quote from an enjoyable story:

Yes, the single alternative shows an arrogance. Especially when it was somewhat light in the fact department. The pattern is much more distinct in the US than it is in Europe. As I was clear in pointing out.

[Jeff K.]

Post script.... Met Robin Williams once. His biography will be titled "The Jerk".

[Jeff K.]

True story:

Man and son come into the office, they seek guidance on the process of getting the wife and daughters here legally from africa. The man and son are told the process and it is explained it will take about five years before they can see their family. The man laments "if we just lived on this side of the world we could just sneak across", lament acknowledge by myself and others in the room.

With in two weeks of meeting this man another couple comes in, seeks guidance on how to obtain legal status, they are told that they are barred for a certain number of years, but are also told "lay low" another amnesty is sure to granted in the next five years.

How would the story end if amnesty was granted this year. The man wanting to get his wife and daughter here legally from Africa still has to wait 3 years; the thousands upon thousands who have given you, me, law, justice, the snub their whole life become legal without consequence. Isn't it fundamental to the Gospel that mercy can not rob justice?

All in all, the other thousands upon thousands, who have already paid upwards of 2,000 US$ a person are told by the US "Thanks for following the law, thanks for the money and BTW we can't arsed to allow you into the US for the next 5 - 10 years....ummm so see yah then" yet at the same time thousands upon thousands who have virtually done nothing but take the US are given a free pass = immoral

I would agree with amnesty IF AND ONLY IF all the people already in the INS pipeline - paper work processing - are told they can come on in FIRST. Reward those who have followed the law first.

I would agree with this portion whole heartedly. Not only that, but an additional tax as a fine for those who entered illegally which would be used to pay for border maintenance.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

[1.] Mine was a historical and factual rebuttal showing exactly why they were different.

Of course they are different. They reflect different eras, laws, and peoples.

In a similar vein, faith has obvious differences from a mustard seed.

But that doesn't mean we're supposed to close our eyes to the similarities between the two.

More to the point, human nature is still much the same.

Which is why we can learn/draw from past events - if we're willing.

If your point were valid, then we would have had many democratic institutions producing Constitutions in the land prior the US Constitution. We didn't. It is distinct from the idea of human nature that created a Constitution when the world was mostly monarchial. YOur point doesn't hold water.

And the similarities mentioned are so shallow that they do not speak to key issues, and yes, when they are shallow they should be ignored since they contribute little to either cause or effect.

Quote

[2.] Yours was an interpretation of a rather shallow historical point of view...[Rome and Germanic immigration]

[3.] ...While the movement of people was something they had in common

That alone is sufficient to make it relevant.

No, it is not sufficient. As I said, bricks and bread are both baked, but their relevance towards each other does not bear mention when discussing recipes or building shelters.

Quote

Consider also that the those who enter the US legally are not treated shabbily but are guarranteed all the rights that those who have been in the US for generations have.

Plate tectonics since 9/11. It's a different landscape.

Founding fathers might be disheartened to see how some unalienable rights have become categorized/treated as if they are alienable.

Guaranteed equal rights? Under the law?

You're misinformed

.

No it appears you are. Care to tell us which rights having a bearing on immigration or immigrants have been lost due to 9-11? None. I have yet to hear of a court case before the Supreme Courtthat says otherwise. In effect, a soundbite, nothing more.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Indeed many come here and start businesses, one of the most interesting aspects is the number of Mexican immigrants who came legally that have started businesses and developed considerable influence in both the US and Mexico.

? Rome's immigrants did the same anciently - and rose to positions of responsibility and influence.

Stilicho is one of numerous such examples.

Again, you don't have to argue that there are key differences between Rome and America.

But even then, this isn't one of them.

While non Romans started businesses, and sometimes thrived, they did not have Roman rights which often put them at the mercy of Romans, this includes property ownership which they could lose at a moments notice. In the US this is not true. Again your point is not valid, and it does not speak to the issue of modern immigration.

Quote

With this we see little to no resemblence with Rome.

Instead, you've illuminated MORE parallels between the two.

I bet when you look at clouds you see parallels to Rome, but you cannot seem to see effective parralells versus mirages.

Jeff K., on 13 May 2010 - 08:23 PM, said:

No ethnic group is favored by the constitution,

And? Via immigration quotas, some nations of origin are explicitly/legally favored.

But I don't follow how that would have supported your preferred point either way.

I repeat, to help you understand "no ethnic group is favored by the Constitution. All ethnic groups are treated equally by the constitution. You seem to conflate citizens and rights with immigration quotas. This is incorrect. Regardless of your ethnic group, you have the same rights under the constitution. I would challenge you to show otherwise.

Quote

...and the rule of law allows for democratic changes in immigration law.

Rome adapted its policies and practices as well. As did England. Etc.

And that process aggravated the problem.

Such changes to appease public outcry can actually worsen things - IF it doesn't address/solve the underlying problem.

So the American situation can actually aggravate the problem - if legislators were to focus more on creating laws that got them reelected than those that mitigate the dilemma.

The quality of a mirage is measured in how substantive it is. Lets say they never rise to any real effectiveness because they are mirages.

You are wrong because Rome's laws, passed via an emperor by that period were not the concern of either plebes or patricians in the senate, they were under the purview of Roman emperors. I would suggest you delve more deeply into Roman history to see how flawed your position is.

Quote

America has learned and in effect is much more open...with the immigration issue...because unlike Europe, the US shares an extensive border with a third world country.

Bordering a less privileged region makes Roman history MORE relevant.

No, not when you consider that it wasn't that the countries were always on the verge of Roman incursion which created hostile forces or servant states. US immigration has allowed, unlike Roman immigration, a greater movement of people. Rome's stance was restrictive disallowing citizenship, rights and the ability to address greivances. The US Constitution is distinct in that matter allowing for the opposite. Again, an invalid point, a false parralell.

[hagoth7]

My original post was in regard to the camoflaged references made to 1930's Germany.

Which post was that?

I am for finding a way to keep those who are not legally here, the opportunity to remain. But you cannot fix a problem with such specious arguments that do nothing to solve the problem.

?

My main argument is this: You can't solve a problem without first understanding it.

And my sub argument is simply this: previous immigration dilemmas offer us avenues of better understanding/responding to America's similar dilemma.

I think fast-food society often denigrates the importance and value of hammering things out in order to understand the problem FIRST. A coworker told me a day or two ago that in his opinion, I should pull out the stops and develop a whiz-bang media-intensive solution ASAP. At the moment he walked in, I was in the process of running an analysis on the client's problem (he's been here four months already). And I told him that such a rash approach would be a disservice to the client without due-diligent assessment of what their problem actually is...and what the relevant parameters surrounding it are. Less than a day after getting started, my initial findings have already shown that following his recommendation would do nothing for the client - other than spend their money. If I had followed his recommendations to the T, and rushed to solutions before defining/understanding the problem such a solution was supposed to solve, the client would have ended up with the equivalent of an elegant boat built inside a warehouse - that was too large and heavy to ever leave the warehouse.

That's how consultants get a bad rap. Touting and building expensive solutions without accurately defining the problem.

So if you think I'm arguing for a solution - I'm not. That's premature.

I'm instead arguing for an understanding of the problem.

Indeed those arguments themselves become part of the problem.

Not if they aid in defining and understanding the problem...which is the first key to solving it.

The church's stance is one of mercy that exists regardless of what Ceaser seeks to render. And I agree with this.

Ah. Common ground.

[hagoth7]

If your point were valid...

I'm not convinced you even understand my point yet.

And the similarities mentioned are so shallow...

If they're shallow, why did you bring the very same points up as relevant...when you thought they proved a lack of similarity?

As I said, bricks and bread are both baked, but their relevance towards each other does not bear mention when discussing recipes or building shelters.

? I am confident that a discussion of bricks and bread is considerably less relevant than a discussion of historical immigration dilemmas.

No it appears you are. Care to tell us which rights having a bearing on immigration or immigrants have been lost due to 9-11? None.

Are you aware that most of the issue you're pressing here is a red herring?

A tangent. A hair-splitting distraction. That doesn't help define the problem.

But since you prefer such a route, and since you're so certain that you're right, I'll defer to our resident immigration attorneys.

Attorneys: under current laws, executive orders, agency policies and/or practices, are non-citizen immigrants guaranteed the same due-process rights as citizens?

[hagoth7]

Again your point is not valid...

Let's see - earlier, my points were supposedly dishonest, unfair, and arrogant.

But things have now shifted to claims of my points being "invalid"?

Seriously? To those familiar with debate, that's a notable change.

But it doesn't further the discussion a whole lot.

I bet when you look at clouds you see parallels to Rome, but you cannot seem to see effective parralells versus mirages.

For the record, when I look at clouds, I see clouds.

(Unless it's dark...and/or unless a ceiling is in the way.)

You seem to conflate citizens and rights with immigration quotas.

Not at all, actually. Not even close.

You are wrong because Rome's laws, passed via an emperor by that period were not the concern of either plebes or patricians in the senate, they were under the purview of Roman emperors. I would suggest you delve more deeply into Roman history to see how flawed your position is.

Just for fun, let's say you're right. And let's say, just for fun, that I've never picked up a Roman history in my life.

And that all I read are clouds.

How would that negate the potential value of considering the immigration pressures on the Empire? (Or on England, etc.)

How would that negate the potential value of measuring how Rome's various responses improved or worsened the situation? Or Denmark's?

Seriously, how would that negate the assertion that we might extract something of value from such an analysis..or that we might gain a better glimpse of something that could mitigate a lot of conflict, and suffering, and heartache...

What then?

...Again, an invalid point...

Yes, I heard you already....and if I've understood you correctly, my points are invalid (whatever you assume them to be), and Rome, Denmark, and England are somehow completely irrelevant to comprehending America's problem.

We can pull the iron curtain on European history.

Waiter - check please?

[rodheadlee]

Yeah..... and just what is your experiance? It cannot be reasonably called racism. Sorry.

My experience is the illegal immigrant is despised on both sides of the border. I've worked with illegal aliens in construction and in the produce business, part of my family are legal born in the USA Mexican (can't speak a lick of Spanish) and I've lived in Mexico for 2 years. I'd say I have a grasp on how each side feels about the situation.

[Jeff K.]

Let's see - earlier, my points were supposedly dishonest, unfair, and arrogant.

But things have now shifted to claims of my points being "invalid"?

Seriously? To those familiar with debate, that's a notable change.

But it doesn't further the discussion a whole lot.

You presume they are not unfair and arrogant as well as invalid. I don't see the additional lack of resource as a "change" rather than an additional facet you haven't considered.

Quote

You are wrong because Rome's laws, passed via an emperor by that period were not the concern of either plebes or patricians in the senate, they were under the purview of Roman emperors. I would suggest you delve more deeply into Roman history to see how flawed your position is.

Just for fun, let's say you're right. And let's say, just for fun, that I've never picked up a Roman history in my life.

And that all I read are clouds.

How would that negate the potential value of considering the immigration pressures on the Empire? (Or on England, etc.)

How would that negate the potential value of measuring how Rome's various responses improved or worsened the situation? Or Denmark's?

Seriously, how would that negate the assertion that we might extract something of value from such an analysis..or that we might gain a better glimpse of something that could mitigate a lot of conflict, and suffering, and heartache...

What then?

It isn't fun, and I am right.

Your very premise is in error. For instance you use the word "empire". Are you speaking of the Roman "empire" which changed over from a republic? The term is erroneous on the face of it for present considerations. The Roman empire did not deal with immigration, it reacted without a program for integration into Roman society with citizenship. The US has been more open to immigration than most modern nations and has a program of integration (I myself am an immigrant to the US). The US question is more a question of neglect than integration. The US "neglected" its border with the south for various reasons, this neglect led to some short term advantages during an economic up cycle, but they did not speak to the long term need for process. The need being reflected in both the US and the immigrants themselves who came without seeking the proper course of action or receiving redress if they wished to correct their course of action.

You keep harping back to Rome (as many people do when dealing with the US) but the parralells are ephemeral at best and false when viewed in a certain understanding of the characteristics of that time, that government, and their policies versus the US modern policy.

The steps I endorse are relatively straightforward.

1-Secure the border, close unauthorized travel between nations (as all nations do)

2-For those who are here illegally but have not broken other laws, allow some system to be in place that eventually grants them citizenship, after (and I underline "after") those legitimately in the pipeline have achieved their right to enter. I would also fine those who have broken the law in the form of a "tax" which can be used to offset the additional costs of border control.

In that general procedure we mitigate the issue of an undefended border. We present a form of punishment that all must pay. We also apply mercy, someting the US is known for (Rome was not).

Reflections of how we are like "Rome" for good or ill, are poor reflections that are neither historical, nor factual, when one truly views Roman history and its movement upon nations. Nor does the reflection help solve the crisis, nor does the comparison "convince" anyone that one choice is better than another. The comparison is, if you really think about it, vapid.