How can this be justified?

Stephen D. Williams
Mon, 01 Oct 2001 23:44:50 -0400

I agree with this with the observation that no country can absorb 
unlimited numbers of immigrants at an unlimited rate without possibly 
severe consequences to 'natives'.  The US economy should not be ruined 
by importing half of the residents from some country we had nothing to 
do with.  Obviously we should take what we can with no major detriment 
to ourselves, and in many cases it's a positive.

Better would be to prevent refugees in the first place.  Based on 
statistics that seem to show how much pigs we are, I'd say that the US 
citizenry is totally outnumbered by gigantic populations in various 
parts of the world.  Why population explosions aren't rationally 
curtailed is another topic.  Various genocidal and regressive regimes 
should be stopped, although if the US moves to do that too much we're 
blamed for creating the refugees...  The UN should revoke a countries 
right to self-govern if it can't get it's act together! (Royal) We 
should just go in and teach them how it's done.  (Ok, mostly joking there.)

As I've said before, give a 1000 Americans, taken from a good 
cross-section of society, a plot of land anywhere in the world and you'd 
see fractal democracy take hold right away.  Peaceful society would be 
built, commerce created, and with a generally rational government and 
defense.  Some of these third world groups seem 1000+ years behind us. 
How do we bring them up to date without alarming the culture police or 
freaking out the citizens?  How do you convince a head hunter in the 
Congo to take a factory job?


Russell Turpin wrote:

> Tony Berkman writes:
>>There is a part of me that agrees with everything 
>>Russell wrote with regard to Secular states.  But 
>>there is another part of me that feels like it is very
>>important for Israel to remain a haven for the 
>>Jewish people, and I don't know if there is 
>>another way ...
> Let me be clear: I fully support havens for Jews 
> who are oppressed because of their religion. And 
> not just one haven; *all* the western democracies 
> should share responsibility for this. And not just 
> for Jews, but for any group that is terribly 
> oppressed. Britain and the US carry a large black 
> mark on their record, for failing to provide 
> greater refuge to European Jews in the 1930s 
> and 1940s. 
> The world has changed since the 1930s. There 
> are groups who face similar horrors today. But 
> they are not Jews. (At least, to my knowledge; 
> there may be some group of Jews who now face
> this.) There are tribes in Africa who are targeted in 
> genocidal wars. There are peoples living in refugee 
> camps, evicted from their home, yet allowed no 
> other place to go. There are a variety of nations 
> where women suffer clitoridectomy, revenge 
> murder for "dishonoring" their family, and fiery 
> sacrifice when they are widowed. And again, the 
> western democracies are failing to provide refuge 
> for these groups, largely because they fear even 
> a small influx of poor immigrants who have a 
> strange culture. 
> Israel now shares in this failure. It freely admits 
> Jews, mostly from America and European nations, 
> where Jews have the same rights as all other 
> citizens. So what? These people are not fleeing a 
> holocaust. Most of them are not fleeing oppression 
> of any kind. This may be politically expedient, but
> it is not provision of a refuge.
> If Israel wants to honor the memory of the 
> holocaust, it would institute a special immigration 
> program for people who now face similar 
> oppression to what European Jews faced in the 
> 1930s and 1940s. Despite the fact that they are 
> not Jews. And in doing so, it would hold up a 
> lamp to the other western democracies. "Look. 
> Each year we admit such refugees, the victims
> of war and genocide, the world's refuse, to this 
> percentage of our population. Now you do the 
> same. You, America, whose Statue of Liberty 
> directs this. You, England, who failed to do so
> for Jews, when it was needed. You, Germany
> and Japan, to twice that percentage, in expiation 
> for past crime. Look, we admitted 5,000 
> Bosnian Muslims fleeing from ethnic cleansing
> in Europe. How many, America, have you
> admitted?" 
> *That* would honor the holocaust.
> The moral of the holocaust is NOT that it should 
> never again happen to Jews. The moral is that it 
> should never again happen to ANY people. Yet 
> it is happening. And the rich democracies again 
> turn their head, because it is happening to people 
> in the third world who are poor and uneducated, 
> whom we are afraid to admit.
>>The US didn't stand behind Japanese Americans 
>>in the not-so-distant past.  What if some situation 
>>causes panic and unrest.  How confident are you 
>>that the country won't again punish a single group?
> What causes this is precisely the notion that a
> nation is for some people, but not others. History
> presents us a choice. The old idea is that people 
> are safe when they are in their own nation, but not 
> elsewhere, and screw those who have no nation. 
> White protestants are safe in America, the Japanese 
> are safe in Japan, and the Jews are safe in Israel, 
> but none are safe in other nations, and the Kurds
> and !Kung and Tlingit are safe no where in the 
> world, because they don't have a nation. So each 
> group wars until it has enough territory, or until they 
> no longer exist, and each nation feels free to 
> enact law or policy that favors "its" people.  
> Or we can create a world where each government
> respects all ethnic and religious groups, even if
> its history gives it a homogenous population. And 
> yes, I realize that we have a long way to go, and 
> that even the western democracies who have gone 
> the furthest down this path still have further to go. 
> But the choice is clear, and the only way down this 
> second path is to reject the first. It seems to me 
> this is the lesson of the holocaust. And also of 
> related events, such as British and US refusal to 
> admit Jewish refugees, and the US imprisonment 
> of its Japanese. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong. But 
> that's how I read this history.
> Russell

Stephen D. Williams
43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax