Wednesday, February 24, 2021

What's wrong with illegal immigration?

Philosopher Bill Vallicella makes a number of good points regarding illegal immigration.

12 comments:

  1. To the point Bill makes that leftists play loose with words and use words like undocumented workers instead of illegal aliens, some leftist paper, NYT, what have you, used last week to attack Republicans by saying something along the lines of they pretended to govern while attacking cities that were protecting immigrants. A total mutilation of the English language.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good example!

      I suppose it's not only that the left manipulates language to their own advantage and/or to the disadvantage of the left's opponents, but it's also that the left assumes that they are the ones who are the best arbiters of what's true or false, right or wrong, good or bad, in the first place. The left decides what's true/right/good and if people don't agree, then the left will seek to shame or cancel us. What it really amounts to is leftist authoritarianism, I think.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, it's quite topsy turvy. I don't know if that was the plan from the get go, but I've heard leftists be proud that the free speech movement came out of leftist bastions like Berkley. And after it's done it's job, it turns out in the end the result was the opposite of the stated goals. Free speech if you agree with us, otherwise no hate speech.

      Delete
    3. Verbal engineering precedes social engineering

      Delete
  2. Another argument is humanitarian. Illegals exist outside of the system. The left wants to protect people by raising the minimum wage, but that only functionally applies to people for whom it can be enforced. I'm all for legal immigration because it protects immigrants who come here legally. If they want people to come to the US, make it easier for them to do so legally. That makes those with nefarious intent easier to track (we'll have records of them including things like finger prints and photos) and those who seek gainful employment to be protected by labor laws when they find it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The simple answer to this is "is it Biblical to turn away your neighbor" and my answer is no. It's very unfortunate that the above comments call out "The left", "left manipulates", "leftist bastions like Berkley". There are many Christians who are "lefter" than the above commentors.

    Frankly, I expected this yesterday in my tech Discord group when we discussed politics (people in there from around the world). Of course it was phrases akin to "brain-dead Republicans"and "crank conservative". Keep in mind these are people from around the world. The laugh at the American right because our left is their center/center-right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Furthermore, I wonder the strong Biblical principles doctrine of (some) on the right coupled with the the actual care for your neighbor of (some) on the left is what Jesus actually was going for. This false dichotomy and what-about-isms that we've fallen into.

      Why is it that those who opposed slavery and championed women's rights were from the left? Yet we also look at the left with disdain.

      I have learned to separate progressive theology and progressive politics. Two different things. The former is much worse, and the latter is orthodox Christianity in it.

      Delete
    2. "The simple answer to this is "is it Biblical to turn away your neighbor" and my answer is no."

      1. This absolutizes neighbor-love, but there are competing and even conflicting duties in the Bible. For example, if someone breaks into another person's house and threatens to murder and rape their family, then is it biblical to "turn away" the person who has broken into the home?

      2. The left typically argues for open borders. Yet open borders is more radical than what many if not most nations around the world wish to have for their own nations.

      ""It's very unfortunate that the above comments call out "The left", "left manipulates", "leftist bastions like Berkley". There are many Christians who are "lefter" than the above commentors.""

      You simply assert it's "very unfortunate that the above comments call out 'The left'" but you don't explain why you think so. The existence of "many Christians who are 'lefter' [sic] than the above commentors [sic]" isn't an explanation. For example, why do you think it's "very unfortunate" to call Berkeley a leftist bastion? Have you ever been to Berkeley? The majority of Berkeley residents would have no problem identifying as "leftist". So why is it "very unfortunate" to call them what they call themselves? Or just look at how Berkeley votes in any major election year after year after year. Do you think they vote to the political right?

      "Frankly, I expected this yesterday in my tech Discord group when we discussed politics (people in there from around the world). Of course it was phrases akin to "brain-dead Republicans"and "crank conservative". Keep in mind these are people from around the world. The laugh at the American right because our left is their center/center-right."

      1. What makes you think your opinion or your summary of your tech Discord group's opinion is necessarily representative of the rest of the world?

      2. Triablogue gets visitors from all over the world. Not to mention private emails from people all over the world. We've heard many different opinions from yours. Far from everyone "laughs at the American right". At best, this is just your anecdotal experience based on your own limited circle of friends and acquaintances.

      3. It's simplistic to say "our left is their center/center-right". That depends on the nation(s) as well as issue(s) we're comparing, among other things. For example, what "our left" in America wants regarding abortion (e.g. after birth abortion) is more radically "left" than what many if not the majority of other nations want. This even includes many "left" leaning European nations.

      4. For better or worse, America is a global leader and many nations take their cue from us. So what happens in the US can influence what happens in other nations. To be fair, it sometimes goes the other way too. However, being a global leader usually means there's more political, economic, social, and/or cultural influence from us to them than the other way around.

      5. Somewhat ironically, most leftists in general seem to hold the view that the developed world is more enlightened than the developing world when it comes to issues like open borders, abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, recreational drug use, and a host of other issues. But why is this necessasrily the case? Why doesn't the left listen to what the developing world says about these issues for instance?

      Delete
    3. "Furthermore, I wonder the strong Biblical principles doctrine of (some) on the right coupled with the the actual care for your neighbor of (some) on the left is what Jesus actually was going for. This false dichotomy and what-about-isms that we've fallen into."

      This cuts both ways. What you said could apply to those on the left too. Why do so many professing Christians who are leftists seem to hate people on the right? Why can't these leftists agree to disagree? Why are leftists in favor of cancel culture? How is canceling people for dissenting opinions "loving" their neigbhor? And so on and so forth.

      "Why is it that those who opposed slavery and championed women's rights were from the left?

      1. I'd draw a distinction between leftists and liberals. I don't have a problem with, say, classical liberals.

      2. Many conservative Christians were among the ones who opposed slavery as well as championed women's rights. Just look at the history.

      3. Leftists today have double standards. For example, leftists oppose the sex trade, which often involves enslavement of boys and girls, but they don't often oppose Islam on slavery and the sex trade despite the fact that many Muslim lands are rife with slavery and the sex trade. That was true centuries ago as well as today. In fact, more slaves from West Africa were taken into Muslim lands than to America. A significant difference is that Muslims often castrated male slaves and often took female slaves to be their concubines, unlike America where slaves were still able to reproduce.

      "Yet we also look at the left with disdain."

      1. I disdain leftist policies, but (usually) I don't disdain leftist persons I know.

      2. However, some people are worthy of "disdain". Most people would "disdain" Hitler as an example. I don't see how that's wrong. In fact, many if not most leftists (including professing Christians) who are leftists "disdain" neo-Nazis. What's more, these same leftists frequently label conservatives in general as racists, white supremacists, etc. despite the fact that we oppose racism, white supremacy, etc.

      3. That said, one doesn't need to "like" one's enemies in order to "love" them. That's not what the Bible teaches.

      "I have learned to separate progressive theology and progressive politics. Two different things. The former is much worse, and the latter is orthodox Christianity in it."

      One issue is that progressivism can influence how one understands the Bible. Of course, the same could be said about other ideologies including conservativism. But conservatives Christians (at least among evangelical Protestants like we are) typically hold to sola Scriptura and inerrancy (or something approaching them) as well as hermeneutics based on a solid standard like the grammatical-historical method, whereas progressive Christians do not - not typically.

      Delete
    4. In addition:

      1. Hopefully you're not insinuating that anyone who is opposed to illegal immigration is a racist, bigot, or xenophobe. That's an illegitimate conclusion I see many leftists or progressives draw.

      2. I think most conservatives and most classical liberals hold a moderate position on immigration. We don't hold to radical positions on the left or the alt-right. On the left, open borders. On the alt-right, closed borders (except perhaps for those with Northern European ancestry). Rather we hold to legal immigration. One can reasonably debate how to best delimit "legal" immigration, but in any case we're more moderate than the aforementioned positions.

      3. Again, loving one's neighbor involves protecting one's neighbor from harm. For instance, should immigration policy knowingly admit immigrants who are anti-Semitic, who treat women as second class citizens, and/or who sometimes even cultivate a culture of rape? Yes, this is true of many Muslims. Look at data among Muslims in the UK for example. Such as in communities where sharia is permitted de facto if not de jure.

      4. See a book like The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible by biblical scholar James Hoffmeier. Hoffmeir did a brief interview with TGC on his book. One doesn't need to agree with everything in the book to profit from the book.

      Delete
    5. Wilson

      "Why is it that those who opposed slavery and championed women's rights were from the left?

      Why do you think the left today is politically or ideologically consistent with the left in the past? Do you think political or ideological beliefs and values can't change over time?

      Let's take a concrete example:

      In the US, it was Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans that opposed slavery, while Jefferson Davis and the Democrats supported slavery.

      Moreover, the KKK's goals were often consistent with the Democratic party's goals at the time and the KKK's goals were often inconsistent with the Republican party's goals at the time. Most KKK members at the time were Democrats.

      In the past, the Democratic party opposed Reconstruction, supported segregation, and played down lynchings. Indeed, it was the Democrats who predominantly enacted and enforced Jim Crow laws in the South (which lasted all the way until the 1960s). As far as I'm aware, the only comparable movement in the Republican party were the Lily-whites, but most of the Republican party supported African-Americans.

      Would you say that the modern left is politically or ideologically more consistent with the mid-19th to mid-20th century Republican party than it is with the Democratic party today (and/or that the modern right is politically or ideologically more consistent with the mid-19th to mid-20th Democratic party)? If so, how so?

      Delete