Underlying Principles in the Immigration Debate

In my last post, I shared an exchange between myself and a friend who took me to task on my talk show over my stance on the illegal immigration issue.  I received a reply from him last night and I'm posting it along with my responses.  Craig's responses are in BLUE and mine are in GREEN.

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Craig S------- wrote:

Bryan,

Thank You for the reply.

I have added some thoughts and questions...

..., I and others are scared to death, that we are allowing America to be destroyed.  You contend that we, the over-reacting, are falling prey to the conservative hate mongers...  The Sarah Palins, the Rush Limbaughs, the Glen Becks.... people who talk with America every day...I do believe there is a great deal of over-reaction to illegal immigration, Muslims, and other "enemies-at-the-gate" that are used to keep us fearful and our attention focused on something other than the underlying principles.  Please note that I never named names or called the above listed individuals hate-mongers, those are your words.  It is interesting that you would name the people you did.  (These are the people the elite and media tell us to shun like the plague.  I am suspicious of the elite's every action, suggestion and motive.  ...But I use their terms as a badge of achievement, like the LDS use the term "Mormon" which was intended as a slight.)  Craig, the people you name as being shunned by the media and the "elite" are themselves a part of the the media elite. They serve the purpose of loyal populist opposition to the political left, all the while helping to artificially define the "acceptable" parameters of debate for any given issue.  This fact is lost on too many conservatives who honestly, if not naively, choose to believe that the struggle for freedom is a battle of Left vs. Right.  But it's not.  The real battle is the State vs. the People.

These people do talk to America every day and on some matters they speak truth, on others they lack sound principles.  (Limbaugh and Hannity shoot from the hip, because they were schooled to not have principle, but it is amazing how much they have figured out...  You would have them silent????)  Please show me exactly where I, in any way shape or form, have advocated censoring anyone.  Trying to put words in my mouth by throwing out a red herring is entirely unacceptable.  You need to re-read my earlier comments about how these individuals occasionally promote sound principles, but often they do not.  The real question that remains is how does a national audience of people who largely don't understand principles of proper government discern the difference between what is sound and what is not?

How many Americans know the difference and how many just parrot what is being said?  (I respect men like Thomas Jefferson and Cleon Skousen who figured out much of it... some by parroting what they learned and some on their own.  I doubt there is anyone who really understands it all, but God.  Yet you and I haven't done much of the figuring out.      We too parrot the things we have learned from greater men than ourselves.  And along the way we may get some of our own inspiration.  

Speak for yourself, Craig.  I don't have all the answers, but I've paid a very real price to learn to think critically and to understand what I do.  Yet I'm still very much a work in progress.  

My education will be a lifelong experience and as I encounter new truth, I will change my point of view accordingly.  There's a world of difference between simply parroting someone else and actually applying acquired truth and light in our lives.  Thank God for greater men than ourselves who took the time to learn, live and teach these principles rather than simply live on borrowed light from someone else.

But where would we be today without the the lesser lights like the Palins (well intentioned, but perhaps somewhat principle-weak politicians), the Limbaugh's (outspoken gadflies, that just happen to have acquired some wisdom and influence for good), and the tin-foil-hatted crazies like Glenn Beck (people who have come back from the abyss and are trying to help their neighbors piece the puzzle together, before it eats them for lunch.)  Without them, we would already be wearing the chains!  An error of as little as one degree in navigation can result in an airliner missing its destination entirely.  How do you suppose the cumulative effect of little errors of principle-weak politicians and public figures might affect the ultimate destination of an populace that is almost completely disconnected from its heritage?  Take the good that people have to offer, but remember that ultimately your mind is your own and don't become enslaved to a particular flavor of populism.

 Thesis:  Illegal aliens: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Rush, Is That You?

The present administration acts like there is absolutely no threat from illegal aliens.  You too talk like you agree with that stance. (Is that what you wished to convey?)  Hmmm, are you going to try the guilt by association fallacy now?  If I don't endorse your point of view wholeheartedly then I must be in lockstep with the Obama administration?  Again, I'm going to challenge you to back up this assertion with any proof that I have ever stated that illegal immigration is no threat whatsoever.  What I've said is that it's simply not the greatest threat we face and I stand by that statement.  Likewise, where has the Obama administration ever  opined that the State poses a threat to our freedoms?  No comparison whatsoever, so let's stick to the subject at hand. 


OK, so you say there is no victim to such immigration so why penalize them?  Then why didn't they apply for entry through valid means?  It takes too long?   (This is our morality problem to solve, not theirs.)  But, you argue,  they must cross our border, without permission,  Once again you're attempting to put words in my mouth, Craig.  I'm not arguing that anybody MUST cross our border either with or without permission.  They choose to cross the border because there is opportunity here that is not available in their homeland and no amount of posturing on our part is going to convince everyone that has chosen to vote with their feet.  That we have erected an expensive, complicated bureaucratic jungle of red tape in order for one to gain permission to be here shouldn't be enough to discourage people from availing themselves of it, right?


 ...because we owe them sanctuary?  Do we??? Do we owe them a vote too?  Do we owe them an education?  Do we owe them a job?  Do we owe them medical services?   Do we owe them deference to their customs?  Do we owe them their land again?  When they outnumber us, do we owe them the right to change America to Mexico again?  Where does it stop?   How's your Spanish? ...and would you care for some Napoleonic law? Now we enter the realm of the slippery slope fallacy where if we don't treat all those who lack official permission as dangerous criminals then we will become Mexican territory again.  Again, Craig, I urge you to return to the principles that are at stake.  Under the proper role of government, no one would have claim to what rightfully belongs to another through entitlement programs and coercive redistribution.  But the collectivist entitlement systems we have in our nation were put there by US, not the Mexicans.  


How about we get that beam out of our own eye before getting so worked up over the mote in theirs?

Mixed Messages Much?

...and those were the harmless immigrants that we allowed to flood our nation because of our sense of guilt...  I don't feel any guilt, do you?  (I do feel pity, and would like to do something for them, but not to the point of devastating my own house.)  It may not be right that we are saddled with the demands of growing socialism, but until we solve that problem, adding more burdens to the systems, is courting disaster!  No guilt here, but plenty of shame that my fellow Americans are more interested in fixing blame for our nation's troubles on anyone but themselves.

Anti-Thesis:  (Every stimulus tends to evoke a response, good or bad.)

Now, how about the truly criminals?  Are you advocating that we allow criminals and terrorists to take refuge in the US without the slightest effort to keep them out?  Again, Craig, I challenge you to back up this assertion with anything I've stated that in anyway advocates open arms for terrorists and criminals.  This is plain old lazy argumentation to keep throwing out red herrings.  Please stick to the issue at hand. 

Not The Issue at Hand

My home is my castle!  None shall pass but by my permission.  (How quaint of me.)  My state is my free land to roam in safety and tranquility.  I pay taxes and delegate authority in concert with my fellow citizens so that safety and tranquility will reign in that land. (Obama notwithstanding!)  Anyone who would enter that land and hurt or make afraid is to be admonished, corrected, incarcerated, expelled, or otherwise eliminated.  (How like Satan, that I expect to be surrounded by order?)  You seem to strain at the suggestion that we would exercise the prerogative to screen visitors at the door.  I don't understand how you can say that...???   (Is it that we travel freely between states that hold similar standards?  Does Mexico share our standards?)  How exactly do you propose that the State screen every person who sets foot on American soil?  For those who enter through the approved portals that's fine and dandy, but we have many thousands of miles of borders and coastlines that offer access to those who do not wish to go through official channels.  The bottom line is that not everyone who enters this country will be screened to your satisfaction.  So what do we do?  Fences, drones and hundreds of thousands of troops on our borders will make us more like North Korea, but will not stop those who are determined to sneak in.  Which brings us back to the proper role of government; instead of treating everyone as a potential criminal and terrorist, focus on those whose behavior is criminal and hold them accountable.  Freedom is preferable to the "safety' of an all-powerful government. 

All In The Name of Safety

That we are so adamant (over-reactive) about this is because people (like you?) and the administration act like this is the last thing that should ever be considered! (sigh) guilt by association fallacy

Synthesis:  (We're off to the new world order.)

I see the current administration trying to dilute the average American's influence, by making this country awash with balkanized, ignorant, poor.  In so doing, they will likewise relegate the legitimate citizens to a state of  balkanized, ignorant poverty.   Do I seem too paranoid?  (I'm not planning to wait for the chains and shackles.) You are correct, but the Balkanization of America didn't start nor will it end with this administration.  Our reduction to economic slaves has been in the making for many generations and it has nothing to do with the illegal immigration problems that are currently keeping far too many good Americans hyper-fixated on a symptom rather than the problem.

Is There Something We're Missing?

Tutorial Time:

I'm in a quandary as to what freedoms we are sacrificing...   Loss of Anonymity?  (We have sacrificed that already, for the sake of commerce.)  Loss of  the freedom to run away across the border?  (The country on the other side is less forgiving, both to the north and south.)  Have we made ourselves crass knaves, like the other nations that protect their borders?  What is this horrible price we would pay to protect our tranquility, as you see it? It always comes back to the proper role of government, Craig.  Freedom and free markets are preferable to the central planning and economic intervention that are part and parcel of strict immigration controls.   Are you really willing to submit to socialist intervention in the area of immigration while decrying it in other areas of our lives?  Are you ready to discard your remaining freedom of privacy in order to have the illusion of safety from a government that promises security even as it's fitting you for a straitjacket?  What you and others are demanding is an expansion of the state's power, not just over immigration, but generally.  Such expansion always comes with an accompanying decrease of liberty.  Bastiat's essay "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen" provides great insight to this concept.

More Is Not Necessarily Better

I will summon the greatest authority I know; that of God:  His kingdom is by invitation only!!!   He invites all, who would be righteous, and none else can come to corrupt.  Are you seriously comparing our fallible and increasingly corrupted government to the all-knowing and all-powerful God of the universe?

==========================================================

There is something deeper, I suspect, that bothers you, about the proposition that we would defend a border...  You seem to be so highly reactive against something that seems so obvious to me and many others.  It's not simply a matter of defending the border, Craig.  The implications go far beyond simply keeping Mexicans out of our nation.  The underlying principle which you don't appear too eager to acknowledge is whether the solution you're calling for falls within the scope of the proper role of government.  

Expanded police powers and more central planning are better suited to growing socialism than they are to protecting the God-given rights of the governed.  Heads they win-tails you lose.  What may seem highly obvious to you and others may not be as based in principle as you believe.

My Cell-Love It or Leave It

God in his wisdom employs a cell wall at the outer margin of that bastion of life that we call a living cell.  Without that wall, the cell would lose form and coherence of function.  Its resources would quickly dissipate.  Foreign substances could freely interfere in the internal processes.  Yet that Wall is highly permeable to the comings and goings of substances that pertain to life, as directed from within.  Specifically, without a wall, life would not be conceivable!  Let me see if I understand this correctly: the cell's life actually depends upon its ability to facilitate a two-way flow of essential materials through a permeable cell membrane?  

Without that two-way flow, the cell would quickly die, correct?  

It sounds to me like you've just disproved your own argument unless you're suggesting that American citizens are like those substances that pertain to life and Mexicans are like antibodies.  I always thought they were God's children just like us.  Perhaps we should differentiate between those who come to be life-sustaining and those who come with harmful intent?

 Since you brought God into it, please consider a scripture from the Book of Mormon.  

Helaman Chapter 6 verses 7-9: 

 And behold, there was peace in all the land, insomuch that the Nephites did go into whatsoever part of the land they would, whether among the Nephites or the Lamanites.

And it came to pass that the Lamanites did also go whithersoever they would, whether it were among the Lamanites or among the Nephites; and thus they did have free intercourse one with another, to buy and to sell, and to get gain, according to their desire.

And it came to pass that they became exceedingly rich, both the Lamanites and the Nephites; and they did have an exceeding plenty of gold, and of silver, and of all manner of precious metals, both in the land south and in the land north.  

So, Craig, were the Nephites and Lamanites better off when they emphasized their differences and erected barriers between them or when they facilitated greater freedom and free markets between them?  Note the lack of fear and hysteria in the above verses of scripture.  What do you suppose motivated them in their attitudes toward one another?  The Golden Rule perhaps? 

Was This Guy Pro-Freedom or Not?

Ben Franklin observed that walls make good neighbors....  Think about it.   Trust me when I tell you that I've done a lot of thinking about that concept.  Walls also make fine prisons depending upon who sits atop them.

Illegal immigration is to what is actually destroying America as a nosebleed is to a heart attack.  It's a messy problem to be sure, but if all of your attention is focused on stopping the nosebleed, how does that fundamentally help improve the patient's condition? 

Tell me what I'm missing.  It's simply a matter of priorities, Craig.