First, let’s be very clear if a discussion about immigration is to take place outside the realms of history, structural issues, constitutional law and interpretation and comparative religions we must be honest and say no discussion is really possible. Why? A 21st century discussion on an issue like immigration requires an examination of all these disciplines.
If these are not allowed in this discussion we’re unable to converse intelligently is that agreed? All that can happen is infotainment masked as journalism. Citing government or onstitutional sources without asking deeper questions about the basis of those sources, how those resources are actually used constructively and only focusing on the comparatively minor instances when they be misused or when bad apples are viewed as the totality of how the greater majority may use them isn’t a real discussion at all but a devolve ment into 21st century hidebound shouting matches. If that’s Anne’s definition of rationality I’m also not interested.
Finally, Anne has assumed from the outset that anyone opposing her must to use her words “only want to open the U.S. to everyone .” But since in fact the current, broken immigration system doesn’t even work that way but on a system of quotas where countries are allotted a certain number if immigrants annually, then where can this discussion go?
What we ‘re really dealing with is bias and suspicion which are not open for discussion but only mutually reinforcing stereotypes where can this conversation go ?
No one argues for an absence of a syst em to govern immigration. It ‘s a question if whether or not the system is adequately working to promote positive results.
If RRR is an organization that simply wants to exist in a vacuum where the “multiple push” factors governing immigrant desires to enter the U.S. Without considering the harmful and destructive practices of a variety of factors including those practices of globalized economic elites including but not restricted to those in our own country, where is the basis for discussion ?
I ‘m also saddened that those on this post or at minimum Anne herself are bothered by words like “charity” and “justice” since words such as these are the basis of a civilized world then I ask a final time what can be assumed about the prospects for discussion?
If I am wrong on these claims then do inform me for I would welcome a calm discussion not a shouting match of staged actors masked as journalists a la FOX News or it’s counterpart MSNBC.
if all you want is generalities which allow no room for co