Rationality, Anne ‘s Offer and Discussion

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.
Regards,

Sojournertpw
if all you want is generalities which allow no room for co

Advertisements

Strong opinion piece on FOX News?

What a surprise.  The latest incarnation of the yellow-baiting Hearst news model has “strong opinions”?  Sure, pick the worst immigrants, allege to an ill-informed public more concerned about lower gas prices than the deeper questions on any issues including immigration – that “all” immigrants are such and such a way.  And voila – you create mass hysteria by inflating and misdirecting public opinion against anyone you want to scapegoat.  

All the while the billionaires – behind the scenes manipulate their bought and paid servants in congress except a handful with integrity – and get away with murder.  
An 8th grader is capable of such conduct.  Sadly, that’s the mentality Rupert Murdoch and his couriers and servants appeal too.

The fundamental problem with refugee watch

What refugee resettlement watch refuses to acknowledge time and time and time again are the myriad if factors which drive immigrants from their homelands.  By bitterly focusing on the sins if a few in an effort to discredit the whole you conveniently and perhaps innocently misrepresent distort or intentionally ignore the roles that International economics and now the environment play in pushing people from their homelands.  

You rage at Central Americans who flee their homelands.  Meanwhile, you overlook the utterly destructive roleInternational   financial institutions based in Washington D.C, not to mention U.S. militarism has historically  and continues to play creating havoc in these countries.

You rage about Muslims yet conveniently ignore the naive, however well-intentioned American efforts to maintain a presence in the Middle East to appease oil interests here and abroad not to mention the myopic desire Americsn citizens have for cheap oil.

Change is coming whether you like it or not .

Thank goodness for a real moral leader like Pope Fancis who has the capacity to call into question the financial interests and corruption not to mention the profound scientific ignorance which characterizes those selfish, consumer-driven interests who control both parties in this country especially a large swath of the conservative interests embodied in organizations like yours  and unfortunately a large segment of the Republican Party.