Border crises

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Walker
Posts: 6693
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Border crises

Post by Walker » Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:21 am

Many politicians tell the public that there is not a crisis of illegal immigration in the US. (The other side of the pond has maybe heard the same thing about their countries.)

Why would the politicians say that?

The empirical evidence says there is a crisis.

“Illegal immigrants from 50 different countries — including China, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt and Romania — have been caught crossing into the US from Mexico, a top Border Patrol official ¬testified Tuesday.”

https://nypost.com/2019/04/09/immigrant ... -official/

Walker
Posts: 6693
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Walker » Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:24 pm

The fact of “50 different countries,” mentioned above, does not appear to be a political opinion.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5922
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:48 pm

Walker wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:21 am
Many politicians tell the public that there is not a crisis of illegal immigration in the US. (The other side of the pond has maybe heard the same thing about their countries.)

Why would the politicians say that?
Nobody can answer that question, except the politicians themselves. We might suspect it has something to do with partisan politics in the U.S., and nothing to do with what the U.S. actually needs, or what is moral.

Speaking of what is moral, we might broaden the problem into ethics generally. One feature of ethics that is not often noted is that it requires a "border" too.

That is to say, to make an ethical decision, one must first rightly define the parameters of one's legitimate concern. This means that one inevitably sets a "border" between those who are of concern to one, and those who are not of concern.

To give a practical example, if one decides one might have an ethical duty to provide food to someone, one might legitimately ask, "To how many?" Perhaps one decides it's primarily to people in one's own home. Maybe it might be to provide something somewhat less to one's neighbours. But if one lives in a city of, say, 1,000,000, then it's obviously not a good ethical decision simply to divide one's resources among them equally -- that might be egalitarian, but the net outcome would be that nobody was "fed": you couldn't afford enough to give each more than a crumb, and your family would starve too. How would that be ethical?

Worse still, the chances are very good that you'd do nothing at all. Realizing that you had insufficient resources to meet the needs of everyone in your city, you could become frozen -- paralyzed by indecision or emotionally anaesthetized against your realization of duty to your own family, friends and neighbourhood...and then, if that happened, you'd do nothing at all about the situation. How could that be ethical?

So too, in a country there is also a limited supply of resources -- space, jobs, medical care, educational opportunities, food, shelter, transportation, tax funds, etc. It might follow, then, that the first thing an ethical country out to do is to define the borders of its legitimate concern. And we might ask what the "ethical duty" of the U.S. is, if any, to those not conventionally within its territories.

So my question is this: how does one define the "borders" of a country, so it can behave ethically toward whatever people are the objects of its actual ethical responsibilities, and so that its ability to behave ethically is not simply diffused into the vast numbers outside of its legitimate bailiwick?

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Belinda » Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
To give a practical example, if one decides one might have an ethical duty to provide food to someone, one might legitimately ask, "To how many?"
The only political system that can answer that is socialism which act so to bring reason to the problem that Immanuel has described. Distributive justice depends on production of goods and services to match population size. Efficient planning and development of goods and services and also means of equitable distribution depend upon centralised funds.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5922
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:30 pm

Belinda wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:03 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
To give a practical example, if one decides one might have an ethical duty to provide food to someone, one might legitimately ask, "To how many?"
The only political system that can answer that is socialism
Not at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Socialism is a refusal to answer the problem, a refusal even to think about it, really. It tries to eliminate it by the arbitrary and and impossible axiom," let's pretend everybody can be equal."

In Cuba you can find billboards reading, "Socialismo o muerte" ("Socialism or death") What we have discovered is that that is no either/or choice, but rather a both/and choice: "Socialismo es muerte" -- Socialism IS death. Just how moral is a system that has never succeeded anywhere on the planet, though tried repeatedly, and has always piled up the corpses? What could be ethical about opting for anything like that? That looks like a major ethical failure, not an answer to the problem of defining the limits of an ethical concern.

But the government issue is beside the point, for the moment. What we're talking about in terms of ethics is "border" criteria for the individual ethical decision, not handing ethical responsibility over to the government. Because whatever we decide for the government, the individual is a microcosm of the issues.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"let's pretend everybody can be equal"

Post by henry quirk » Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:07 pm

Actually, it's more like: 'you, who produces, must provide for that one, who cannot or -- often -- will not produce for himself'.

Socialism (any version you care to foist up) isn't faux-egalitarianism: it's actual, real, in your face, parasitism (centrally planned for 'their' convenience).

*

The border: here and now, barriers are the best, stopgap measure (preferably landmines but razorwire fences if the notion of blowin' people up offends you).

Here and later: ?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:58 am

I live in a house...it's my house...I paid for it...I pay for its upkeep...it's my house.

Yeah?

Okay.

A whole whack of folks, unhappy with their own homes, show up on my doorstep sayin' 'lil Quirk, lil Quirk, let us in!' They wanna live in my house (sleep in my bed, raid my fridge, watch my porn, drink my coffee, smoke my tobacco) and they think they have a 'right' to do this.

Do they?

Of course not.

Even if some of these folks can contribute to my lil economy (instead of just drainin' it), they don't get to come in to my house unless I say they can. And, if I say some can enter and squat, I decide where they squat and what they do...cuz it's my house, not theirs..they're guests (mi casa no es tu casa).

Now, a nation is like a house owned by a buncha folks...some wanna let any- and every-one in who comes a'knockin'...others wanna be more discriminating, applyin' a standard for (non)entry...bastids just wanna turn the lot away at the threshold (go home, unwanted masses!).

Seems to me: till the nation's owners decide what it is they wanna do (and then codify this) the doors oughta stay 'closed'.

Right now: Americans are all over the place about who to let in, why to let in, etc. ...our codifications are equally all over the place...we roommates need to make some decisions and -- as I say -- them masses need to stay out till we do.


Landmines, baby... :boom:
Last edited by henry quirk on Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5922
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re:

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:07 am

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:58 am
I live in a house...it's my house...I paid for it...I pay for its upkeep...it's my house.
Yep, good.

But the personal side of the question returns: in ethics, how do we draw the boundaries between people we owe an ethical duty, and those who are outside of it?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"how do we draw the boundaries between people we owe an ethical duty, and those who are outside of it?"

Post by henry quirk » Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:23 am

For me, it's simple: if I love you, you win; if I don't, go pound sand.

As a nation: we (should) ally with the like-minded, oppose the shitmongers, assist -- in their own homes, within reason -- the worthy needy, and turn a blind eye to the unworthy.

What makes for worthy neediness? Natural disaster is the standard.

Unworthy neediness? A population that does nuthin' to overthrow a shitmonger deserves what they get (to live with and in the shit).

The days of 'tired & huddled masses' are well over.

landmines: :boom:

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5922
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "how do we draw the boundaries between people we owe an ethical duty, and those who are outside of it?"

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:03 am

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:23 am
For me, it's simple: if I love you, you win; if I don't, go pound sand.
Right. I think that's the way most people actually operate in the real world.

But the Democrats in the U.S. and the anti-Brexiters in the U.K. seem to have a theory that we do, in fact have ethical duties to people from other nations and cultures that want to come into one's country, and these duties are pretty extreme. They involve giving those outside people every one of the freedoms and privileges of citizenship, plus special aid such as settlement programs, and special privileges for imported cultures, up to and including immunity from ordinary human rights laws in the country to which they arrive.

But why do we owe this: and if we do, by what principle do we not simply have the same moral duties to every other being on the planet? These proponents of "open borders" never say. They don't discuss how much of the existing national resources ought to be siphoned off in order to do this, and when it should stop (if ever). And they don't ever seem to talk about how these alleged duties to outsiders are to be weighed off against harms done to one's own children and present fellow-citizens.

In other words, they advocate an ethics without boundaries...which are no ethics at all. They refuse to do any of the serious ethical work involved in matching up available resources to proposed ethical duties, or to take all possible ethically-relevant persons into rational consideration. They invoke the language of ethics and human rights, but refuse to do any of the hard work of thinking their "ethical boundaries" through.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"But why do we owe this(?)"

Post by henry quirk » Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:28 am

We don't.

And: the dems, anti-brexit folks, the commies, etc. they know we don't.

Oh, some of the grassroot dupes, the huggy-touchy crowd, they 'believe', but the upper level folks, the shakers, movers, the 'powers', these people don't give a drizzly crap about brown folks from below the border or from 3rd rate/world shitholes.

They want power and control...inflating the parasite class is a means to that.

These garbage people think so litte of the folks who hired them they go so far as to infest their countries with islamists, thinkin' they can control the fanatics as easily as they do the grateful slobs runnin' from hell.

They've made a mistake with that.

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Belinda » Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:46 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Socialism is a refusal to answer the problem, a refusal even to think about it, really. It tries to eliminate it by the arbitrary and and impossible axiom," let's pretend everybody can be equal."
No, socialists are very much aware that everybody is not and cannot be equal.

There are two main ethical thrusts from socialists answering that problem of basic inequality.
Basic inequality is a problem ; one, because our civilisation now demands that people at least appear to be altruistic to some level. Two, because lack of social mobility deprives the economy of potentially efficient elites. And because deprivation among the poorer sort of people deprives industry of fit , peaceful, and healthy lower grade workers. Historically, the latter became obvious when large numbers of recruits for the first world war were found to be unfit for service.

There will always be an elite and members of elites will try to maintain their power. Socialists try to reduce the power differential so that:

a) poorer people are not unfairly exploited and can enjoy the profits of industry for which they have worked

b) the hewers of wood and drawers of water are an efficient labour force

c) poor people with sufficient merit attain positions of power

Socialists are aware of the need for incentives to work. The urge to power is pretty well ubiquitous and the great majority will want their children to have sufficient power at least to be safe and reasonably happy. Most right- wing agitation about laziness and crime among the poor is the result of lazy thinking and is mostly led by right-wing media. White collar crime and laziness is incomparably worse especially among political and financial elites.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5922
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:43 pm

Belinda wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:46 am

Basic inequality is a problem
Well, you have to admit that's not an obvious claim. People are actually born unequal -- in strength, intelligence, abling, aesthetics, culture, location...and every other way one can name. It's not at all obvious we have any principle that says we ought to fight against that, so as to introduce even an appearance of equality. That's something that needs rational showing...but I guess, go ahead, if you've got it.
; one, because our civilisation now demands that people at least appear to be altruistic to some level
Again, not obvious. Nietzsche thought such things were bunk, and were, in fact, against the life force, the "will to power" that ought to drive people and society forward. He thought they were actually a Judeo-Christian artifact that needed elimination. Have you a showing that "civilization demands" this, or that if it did, we'd be duty bound (morally) to fulfill that "demand"?
Two, because lack of social mobility deprives the economy of potentially efficient elites.
What irony that entails. Of course, there are, by definition, no "elites" in an equality. And there is no potential for "social mobility" in an equal system. And there is no such thing as achievement without hierarchy. So it would seem to me that this affirms what it denies, in the same breath.
And because deprivation among the poorer sort of people deprives industry of fit , peaceful, and healthy lower grade workers.
Well, I have to think that's also contradictory. Now you've not just got "elites," but "drones," or "the poorer sort" as well, in your society. And you've made equality "the opium of the masses," that keeps them "fit, peaceful and healthy lower grade workers." I don't think you can doubt that Marx would hate that.
Most right- wing agitation about laziness and crime among the poor is the result of lazy thinking and is mostly led by right-wing media.
Oh, well, that's not true. Have you ever actually lived among low-income, government supported folks? They come in all kinds: but one common kind is the person who's content to stop at that level. Denying that is a problem will not make it go away. It's a very serious one. And one of the worst things about it is that the lack of responsibility makes the poor both addicted to government support and totally dispirited. As a result of long-term dependency, they've come to believe that all money must come to them unearned, and they're personally unworthy of earning any...and that lesson is absolutely toxic to basic human dignity as well as work skills.

It's not clear a) that we owe anyone "equality" from a secular perspective -- I don't know what purely secular principle you could cite for that -- and, b) that economic "equality" produced by government handout is a good thing for human beings: it's pretty clear it's really not, actually.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

The socialist wants a Harrison Bergeron world...

Post by henry quirk » Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:43 pm

...and I won't wear the earphones.

It's a conundrum.

commonsense
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by commonsense » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:30 pm

But the government issue is beside the point, for the moment. What we're talking about in terms of ethics is "border" criteria for the individual ethical decision, not handing ethical responsibility over to the government. Because whatever we decide for the government, the individual is a microcosm of the issues.
Yes, the issue of government is moot for now. The issue will only become relevant when it’s possible to make a claim that one system or another is significantly superior in attending to the crisis at the border. Perhaps we should first address what ‘superior’ means in view of this crisis.

In this regard, I am wondering if the relationship between ethical boundaries and geopolitical boundaries will be helpful going forward. I am not saying that taking this tack cannot lead to a resolution of the border crisis, just that I would like to see more about this comparison or connection.

But I believe that there is an ethical conflict between two ethical principles: the moral treatment of migrants who are legitimately seeking asylum v. the moral responsibility to consider the greater good.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests